JUDGMENT :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellants herein (LRs of the plaintiff) was admitted for hearing on 29-11-2013 by formulating the following substantial questions of law :-

“1. Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on the basis of the defendants perfecting their right by adverse possession?

2. Whether the case of the plaintiffs was established before the trial Court through the power of attorney holder, was proper or not?”

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

3. Plaintiff Radheshyam Pathak filed suit through power of attorney Vijay Prakash Pathak, for recovery of possession based on title stating inter alia that the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff on 27-11-1976 from Shesh Narayan Lal Agrawal and obtained possession of the suit land and immediately thereafter, it was given on license to Mahesh Gond – father of defendants No.1 & 2. The defendants are sons and widow of Mahesh Gond. In the year 1990, license was t