JUDGMENT 1. - Defendant-appellant-Phaili Ram, since dead, had preferred the instant civil regular first appeal against the judgment & decree, dated Feb. 24, 1983 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the suit for possession of immovable property and damages instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed. After the death of Phaili Ram, his legal representatives were brought on record. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter in the same mariner as they were arrayed in the plaint. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and compensation against the defendants with the averments that one Manohar Lal purchased ,o some property in an auction sale. On April 9, 1964, Manohar Lal bequeathed the entire property including the disputed house in favour of his wife-Jadav. After the death of Manohar Lal, Jadav became owner of the said property. On Feb. 14, 1968, Jadav donated 3/4th part of the said house her grand son Ram Charan by executing a registered gift - deed. Ram Charan accepted the gift and became the owner. On March 30, 1968, Ram Charan and Jadav jointly executed a sale-deed transferring their respective shares of the property in favour of plaintiff. At that time Defendant Phalli Ram son of Manohar Lal was residing in the disputed house with the permission of Jadav. Jadav and Ram Charan promised the plaintiff that they would persuade defendant to vacate the portion but the defendant refused to vacate it and filed a civil suit on Nov. 6. 1970 in the court of Civil Judge, Garigapur City, seeking cancellation of afore quoted will, gift-deed and sale-deed. The suit was dismissed on July 5, 1972. The judgment became final as the defendant did not prefer any appeal against it. 3. The defendant submitted written statement denying the averments of made in the plaint, it was pleaded by the defendant that no gift-deed or will was ever executed in favour of Ram Charan and Jadav. Jadav did not obtain probate against the alleged will. The plaintiff did not purchase the disputed house. The defendant became the owner of the house on the basis of his adverse possession over it. The suit was time barred and it was under valued. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as issues which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. The defendant became the owner of the house on the basis of his adverse possession over it. The suit was time barred and it was under valued. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as issues which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. The parties produced their witnesses and learned trial court vide impugned judgment & decree, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. The findings of the learned trial court may be summarised thus : (i) Ex. 1, sale-deed executed jointly by Jadav and Ram Charan in favour of the plaintiff, stood proved. It was also proved that consideration was paid to Jadav and Ram Charan separately. (ii) Ex. 4, will, executed by Manohar Lal in favour of Jadav stood proved by scribe Ramhet Lal (PW 5) and Prabhu Lal (PW 4). (iii) The disputed house was self acquired property of Manohar Lal. (iv) Ex. 5, gift-deed executed by Jadav in favour of Ram Charan was not proved as no witness was examined by the plaintiff. It was not attested by two attesting witnesses as required by the Transfer of Property Act, but issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that sale deed, Ex. 1 was executed in favour of the plaintiff. (v) Judgment dated July 5, 1972, of the District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, was not res judicata between the parties. (vi) The sale by Jadav was valid, though the gift-deed, Ex. 5, was invalid. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendant and it was held that the judgment dated July 5, 1972 cannot be said to be res judicata. (vii) Issue No. 3 was decided in the manner that the defendant was in permissive possession of the property during life time of Manohar Lal and also afterwards. (viii) Issue No. 4 was decided in the manner that the plaintiff gave permissive possession of part of the house to Ram Charan in 1974. (ix) Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. (viii) Issue No. 4 was decided in the manner that the plaintiff gave permissive possession of part of the house to Ram Charan in 1974. (ix) Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. (x) Issue No. 6 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the profit at the rate of 125 p.m. (xi) Issue No. 7 was decided against the defendant and it was held that the defendant did not have the adverse possession over the disputed property. (xii) Issues Nos. 8 and 9 were not pressed before the trial court and they were decided against the defendant. (xiii) Issue No. 10 was also decided against the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant canvassed that gift-deed, Ex. 5 was not proved as scribe and attesting witnesses were not so examined by the plaintiff. Therefore, no valid gift was made by Jadav in favour of Ram Charan. If the gift-deed was invalid, the sale by Ram Charan of the 3/4th disputed property was also invalid as no title was created in favour of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the will executed by Manohar Lal in favour of Jadav was not proved as required under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act. Therefore, the will of Jadav was invalid. The plaintiff and his witnesses- Prabhu Lal and Ram Lal never deposed that they signed the will in the presence of Manohar Lal and Manohar Lal signed in their presence. There was discrepancy in the date on will Ex. 4, and gift-deed, Ex. 5, and the will was forged document. The learned courts below failed to consider the statement of Ramhet Lal (PW 5) who stated that Manohar Lal was ill at the time of execution of will, he expired on April 22, 1964 and the alleged will was executed on April 9, 1964, whereas in the gift-deed, Ex. 5 the date on will was shown as June 9, 1964. The learned courts below failed to consider the statement of Ramhet Lal (PW 5) who stated that Manohar Lal was ill at the time of execution of will, he expired on April 22, 1964 and the alleged will was executed on April 9, 1964, whereas in the gift-deed, Ex. 5 the date on will was shown as June 9, 1964. From the evidence, the defendant proved that he was in continuous possession of the disputed house for a period of more than 12 years and right of the plaintiff to file suit extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff never served notice to defendant but filed suit on Sept. 14, 1978 after 4 years, i.e., after the death of Jadav. The permissive possession of the defendant as pleaded by the plaintiff had not been proved. It was also urged that the court below erred in holding that the sale-deed, Ex. 1, was valid. There was no conscious transfer of property of the whole house by Jadav as the part of the consideration was paid to Ram Charan. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant placed reliance on Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh, AIR 1955 SC 346 , Chunnilal v. Ghanshyamdas, 1971 KW 294 , Syed Mohd. Salie Lalbai (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1569 , M.L. Abdul Jabber Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 1147 , Jaswant Singh and Anr. v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, AIR 1985 SC 1096 and Smt. Gomtibai (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. v. Mattulal (Dead) through LRs., AIR 1997 SC 127 . 8. On the other hand, Shri J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment & decree and placed reliance on Brij Raj (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Sewak Ram and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 2203 . It was contended that as no specific objection in the written statement in respect of the execution of the gift-deed was raised, the defendant cannot raise this plea now for the first time in appeal. 9. In Brij Rai Singh v. Sewak Ram (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated as under : "It is common ground that the defendants have not raised any objection as to the validity of execution/attestation of/in gift dead. 9. In Brij Rai Singh v. Sewak Ram (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated as under : "It is common ground that the defendants have not raised any objection as to the validity of execution/attestation of/in gift dead. Naturally, there was no issue on this aspect. Even the witness (PW 6) was not cross-examined from this angle. Hence we are unable to sustain the contention of Mr. Verma that this being a pure question of law can be raised at the appellate stage. This is a mixed question of fact and law. Proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act dispenses with the necessity of calling an attesting witness in proof of any document, except a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act when there is no specific denial by the party against whom the document is relied upon." 10. In view of the afore-quoted legal proposition, I propose to examine the pleadings of the parties. In pare No. 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded so that Jadav executed gift-deed on Feb. 14, 1968, in favour of Ram Charan and Ram Charan accepted the gift and took over the possession of the said property. In the written statement, the defendant had only denied the averments in para No. 4. The averments in respect of will have been made in pars No. 3 of the plaint and in the written statement, the defendant only denied the averments. I have also carefully scrutinised the additional plea averred in the written statement. In para No. 26 and 27, it was only pleaded that no gift-deed and will was ever executed in favour of Jadav and Ram Charan. 11. O. VIII R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. VIII R. 5 of C.P.C. provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. 12. VIII R. 5 of C.P.C. provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. 12. Admittedly, the defendant had not raised any objection, leave alone specific objection to invalidate the execution of/attestation of the gift-deed or will. No issue was framed on this aspect. The averments of para Nos. 3 and 4 have not been denied specifically by the defendant. Therefore, in my considered opinion in view of the ratio indicated in Brij Raj Singh v. Sewak Ram's case (supra), by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the defendant cannot be permitted now to raise the objection as to validity of execution or attestation of will or the gift-deed. All the arguments raised on behalf of the defendant relate to execution/attestation of the will and gift-deed and I cannot appreciate these arguments now for the first time while hearing the first appeal. I have also properly scanned the evidence of the parties and I am satisfied that the defendant had also not proved his adverse possession over the property. All the issues have rightly been decided by the learned trial court. 13. This appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******