The possession of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest should be considered as the possession of the plaintiffs for the purpose of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, and the sale of immovable property can be completed without the simultaneous delivery of possession.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This Civil Second Appeal by the appellants [‘the plaintiffs in the suit before the trial Court’] is directed against a judgment and decree dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Anantnag [‘the 1st Appellate Court’] in File No. 12 (Appeal) titled Bashir Ahmad Sheikh and Others vs. Mohd. Yousuf Mir and Others, whereby the 1st Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2002 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Anantnag [‘the trial Court’] in a Civil Suit (File No. 2009) titled Bashir Ahmad Sheikh and Others vs. Mohd. Yousuf Mir and Others.

2. Instant Civil Second Appeal was admitted on the following questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2008:

(1) Whether failure of trial Court to return an issue wise finding in the matter vitiates the judgment in any manner?

(2) Whether finding of first Appellate Court that the prayer sought by the plaintiff in the suit is hit by limitation was proper even while the trial Court had neither heard, nor discussed the question of limitation?

3. The aforesaid questions have arisen in the backdrop of following factual matrix:

One Naba Mir was owner of land measuring 07 kanals and 1 marla situate at village Palllapora, Anantnag [‘the suit property’]. He used to visit neighbouring country Pakistan off and on. Naba Mir had a son from his first wife, namely Mohd. Yousaf Mir who was residing in another village named Vessu. As is pleaded by the plaintiffs, during one of his visits to village Pallapora, Anantnag, back from Pakistan, Naba Mir married widowed mother of Maqbool Mir who was original defendant No. 2 in the suit. Maqbool Mir who was apparently a stepson of Nabir Mir, the estate holder, had been in possession of the suit property. Naba Mir stated to have died somewhere in 1979. His estate including the suit property devolved upon Mohd. Yousuf Mir, the real son of late Naba, i.e. defendant No. 1 in the suit. On the basis of title which defendant No. 1 acquired by succession, he sold the suit land to the original plaintiff late Ghulam Qadir Sheikh and his son plaintiff Bashir Ahmad Sheikh by executing a Sale Deed and an Agreement to Sell. Asserting that the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property immediately after purchase of the said land and were later on dispossessed by the defendants, a suit for possession came to be instituted by the plaintiffs before the trial Court on 18.01.1982 against the defendants. In the plaint, it was pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 and his late father had purchased land measuring 3 kanals and 16 marlas out of the suit land from defendant No. 1 through the medium of a sale deed registered on 07.09.1981 against a sale consideration of Rs. 15,000. It was further claimed that rest of the suit property i.e. land measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas was separately purchased by plaintiff No. 1 by virtue of an agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,000. As is claimed, the plaintiffs were immediately put in possession of the land, but were later on ousted from possession by the defendants and, therefore, a suit for possession and injunction.

4. On being served with the summons of the suit, the defendants filed their written statement. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that they had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It was alleged that the sale deed and the agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiffs were manipulated and forged and were otherwise not permissible in law, for, the vendor was neither in possession of the suit property, nor were the vendees ever put in such possession. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs have purchased the suit land by way of valid sale deed and also took the possession of the suit land? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether after the execution of the sale deed possession was handed over by t