JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal arises out of a civil Suit for eviction and possession bearing Civil Suit No.513/64 titled as Smt. Gopali @ Shanti Devi Vs. Sh. Chothmal & Anr. led way back on 09-12-1964, decreed vide judgment dated 30.07.1994 in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and against the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. The legal representatives of defendant No.1, preferred First Appeal No.14/1994, wherein the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1994 has been affirmed vide judgment dated 03-10-1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. This second appeal has been preferred by two legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1- Chothmal and his other legal representatives have been impleaded as respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as proforma respondents. The civil suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff and against legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 (appellants and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4) in following manner:-

^^nkok okfnuh fo:) izfroknhx.k 1@1 yxk;r 1@5 ls oknxzLr lEifr ,Qth,p ls dCtk izkfIr djus ckcr 50-20: olwy djus lfgr e; [kpkZ fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA nk;jh nkok fnukad 09-12-1964 ls rk izkfIr dCtk oknxzLr edku okfnuh dks mijksDr izfr oknhx.k ls 5@& : ekfld dh nj ls gtkZ bLrseky fnyk;k tkrk gSA okdbZ dCtk laHkykus gsrq izfroknhx.k dks nks ekg dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ fMØh fu;ekuqlkj cuk;k tkosA^^

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record as a whole.

3. The co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.1997, framed substantial questions of law for consideration in the instant second appeal.

It appears that while formulating the substantial questions of law, some inadvertent error occurred in mentioning the reference of status of parties in the present appeal with context to their status before the trial court, therefore, the substantial questions of law are being narrated with the correction as required:-

“(I) Whether the findings recorded by the trial court on the question of title to suit property in its judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1994 which is based on the decision of the Civil Court, Jaipur decided on 21st February, 1905 in the suit title Gagnabux Vs. Exhibit A-8 is open to challenged in the present appeal by the defendant-appellant on the plea of adverse possession?

(II) Whether it is open to the Appellant to challenge the impugned order dated 3rd October, 1996 of the First Appellate Court, particularly when the question with regard to the title to suit property having been derived by the plaintiffs-respondents (inadvertently referred as defendants-respondents) on the basis of duly executed gift deed in favour of the said plaintiff (inadvertently referred as defendant) vide Exhibit A-2 has though dealt with by the trial court in its order dated 30th July,1994, has not been dealt with at all by the First appellate Court in its impugned order under challenge?

(III) Whether the findings recorded by the trial court on the question of gift deed which is the basis on which the plaintiff-respondent (inadvertently referred as defendant-respondent) is claiming title over the suit property can be said to be perverse and without any evidence in its support, particularly when the First Appellate court has not dealt with the said question at all in its impugned order under challenge?

(IV) Whether the defendant-appellant (inadvertently referred as plaintiff-appellant) can be said it to have derived his title over the suit property on the plea of adverse possession as against plaintiff-respondent o(inadvertently referred as defendant-respondent) who has established his right, title and interest over the said property by virtue Exhibit A-2 which is gift deed?

(V) Whether the findings recorded by the court below on the question of adverse possession of the appellant can be said to be perverse?”

3. Before dealing with the substantial questions of law, the checkered history of the present case as per material available o