Short Note : 1. It is submitted here that Dawami-patta Ex P-1 being unregistered, no title passed under this deed, but we need not consider this question because the lands transferred under the sale-deeds Exs. D-1 & D-2 are those covered by the registered gift deed Ex. P-2, It is true that under section 68 of the Evidence Act a document required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses at least has been examined to prove its execution. But the proviso to this section dispenses with such a proof if there is no specific denial of the execution of a deed. In the present case, the defendants in their written statement have only pleaded that they were not aware of the gift deed and even in evidence the defendant Manglu has not challenged the execution of the gift deed. This does not amount to specific denial as has been held by the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Bhimasingh v. Fakirchand, 35 MPLC 12=AIR 1948 Nag. 155. Another Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Zaharul Hussain v. Mahadeo Ramji, 36 MPLC. 278=AIR 1949 Nag. 149, has further held "specifically denied" means denied by party against whom document is sought to be used suit by mortgagee against purchaser of equity of redemption-defendant denying execution-proof of execution by calling attesting witness cannot be dispensed with, even though there is no specific denial by executant of mortgage deed. Therefore, the gift deed Ex P-2 being registered. It was not necessary to examine any of the attesting witnesses. 3. Now regarding the question of limitation. There is nothing on record to show that Harishanker was in exclusive and adverse possession since 1952. Harishanker being the husband of Prembai, he was looking after the management of these lands on behalf of his wife, but that would not make his possession adverse to Prembai. Prembai died in 1957 when the plaintiffs were minors and Harishanker continued to manage these lands on behalf of minors as being their father. His possession could never become adverse against his minor sons and daughter till they attain majority. If any properties are under the management of one of the co-owners, his possession can never become adverse unless there is ouster of the other co-owners. There is no pleading or evidence about ouster. His possession could never become adverse against his minor sons and daughter till they attain majority. If any properties are under the management of one of the co-owners, his possession can never become adverse unless there is ouster of the other co-owners. There is no pleading or evidence about ouster. The suit being filed in 1968. Harishanker or his vendees did not perfect their title by adverse possession since 1957 as the period of 12 years was not completed. So, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff's suit is well within limitation. The gift deed Ex. P.2 being registered, the defendants had constructive notice of this document. Appeal dismissed.