On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendantrespondent, at the out-set, contended, that the appeal has not been validly filed and cannot be recognised by law as the appellants herein are Trustees of two different trusts and the suit, as also the instant proceedings, have been initiated through one Gopi Ram, who has been described as their authorised agent, but no resolution authorising him to do so was placed on record. He further contended that this is a question of law which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. He, thus, submitted that the appeal as such cannot be recognised and deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent that the revenue record showed that the State was in possession of the suit land since 1962-63 and even if the best evidence of the plaintiffs-appellants is to be seen, then also, the revenue entries in the shape of jamabandi revealed the State through Public Works Department to be in possession from the year 1964-65 and the suit land has been shown as gair mumkin road. It was further submitted that this fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiffsappellants and since the suit has been filed after a lapse of about eighteen years, the bar of Article 65 of the Limitation Act,1963 (for short, `the Act') was straightway attracted. He, thus, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
