( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant, who have lost in both the Courts. This Court vide order dated 31-7-1996 while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law :-

"1. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in granting a decree for whole of the property when the trial Court has granted a decree for 1/3rd and the plaintiff did not file any cross-objection against rejection of their claim? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled to maintain the possession of the property under the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?"

( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for confirmation of possession and in the alternative, seeking a decree for possession on the ground that one Prahlad was the owner of the land admeasuring 64.25 acres. On death of Prahlad, the suit lands devolved on his three sons namely Yashwant Rao, Madhav Rao and Sudarshan Rao. Yashwant Rao and Madhav Rao relinquished their share in the suit lands in favour of Sudarshan Rao i.e. father of the plaintiffs. Sudarshan Rao died in the