The court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of transactions, the knowledge of purchasers, and the timing of acquisition of rights in property disputes.

Padhye, J—The civil suit from which this second appeal by the defendant (hereinafter called appellant) arises was filed by the plaintiffs (hereinafter called respondents) for a declaration and if necessary, for possession of field No. 15 situate in Karanji Izara. The suit was decreed by the first Court and the appeal preferred by the defendant against that decree was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The defendant has therefore filed this second appeal.

2. It is common ground that the field was originally owned along with other fields in Karanji Izara by Mt. Bayanabai w/o Vyankatrao. She mortgaged her fields in the Izara village including the field No. 15 now in dispute with the plaintiffs on 16th February 1918, and 24th March 1920 and these mortgages merged in a fresh mortgage which she executed on 6-10-1922. The mortgagees enforced this mortgage in Civil Suit No. 61 of 1930 and obtained a final decree for foreclosure on 20-3-1937. They also obtained possession through Court on 28-12 1937.

Waman Santoba, the husband of appellant 1 (now deceased) sued the mortgagees (respondents) for possession of field No. 15 Under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, and this suit, No. 45 of 1938, Was decreed in his favour. He took possession of the field No. 15 on 13-12-1938. The mortgagees-respondents had therefore to file the present suit.

3. The appellant 1 who is the main contesting defendant urged that in Karanji Izara some fields including the field in dispute were owned by Mt. Bayanabai and some fields including No. 2 were owned by Maroti, her sister's son. It was alleged that in 1917 by virtue of an oral exchange between them, the field in dispute was exchanged by Mt. Bayanabai for field No. 2 of Maroti and thus Maroti became the owner of the field and was in possession thereof. On 28-3-1925 Maroti sold this field No. 15 to Waman by a registered sale deed for RS. 5200/- which amount was utilized by Maroti for partial payment of the mortgage debt due to the respondents. The defendant thus pleaded a paramount title, tracing the title of Maroti to the oral exchange in 1917 i.e., prior to the date of the first mortgage In paragraph 10 of the written statement defendant No. 1 pleaded in the alternative as under: Even if the oral exchange is held invalid or is not proved still the defendant submits that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value and his predecessor-in-title Maroti Baliram hud been in exclusive possession of the field in suit as owner for more than 12 years prior to the suit i e. since 1917 (the year of oral exchange) or at least since January 1922 he had in any case acquired adverse title to it.

It appears from the record that Mt. Bayanabai died in 1981 during the pendency of the mortgage suit and Maroti Baliram and his son Bapurao were brought on record as her legal representatives. The mortgage decree was passed against them.

4. Both Courts have found that the alleged exchange of the fields in 1917 is not proved and that the oral exchange in respect of the property worth more than RS. 100/- was also invalid in law. It was further held on the strength of Ex. p. 16 that from 1918 to 1925 Bayanabai was shown as owner and Waman was shown as a tenant. Maroti's possession over field No. 15 was found to be from 1923, i.e. after the last mortgage and never before. Thus the plea of Maroti's title was negatived and Maroti could not consequently pass any title to Waman by virtue of the sale deed dated 28-3-1925.

5. It was further held that Waman was not protected as a bona fide purchaser for consideration from Maroti as Waman knew that Maroti's title was defective as based on an oral exchange and in any case any reasonable enquiry on his part would have disclosed that Maroti had no title to the field.. The appellate Court has fully agreed with the first Court on all these points.

6. In this second appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to attack the finding on the point of exchange, which, as is quite appar