Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below vide judgments and decrees dt. 02.09.1997 and 15.10.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs produced one document “PANADI” of the year 1931 to prove his title and possession for the property in dispute. The plaintiff No. 1 was insane is the fact admitted in the plaint itself.

4. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by time and further the two Courts below wrongly discarded the evidence produced by the appellants. It is further submitted that no enquiry was held about insanity of one of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit could not have been proceeded and consequently, no decree could have been passed by the Courts below.

5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the two Courts below.

6. It is true that in the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is insane and it is also pleaded that he was residing with the plaintiff No. 2. The defendants/appellants denied the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document