Appanna Shankar Shirke & Ors. v. Smt Indirabai Govind Yadav & Ors.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the impugned judgment and notes of evidence. The appellate Court has observed ... 2 ... that the first witness examined by the appellants did not depose that survey officer did not serve any notice prior to carrying out survey. As the said contention was not raised specifically on oath by the witness examined by the appellants, the courts below and especially the appellate Court has not accepted the submission of the appellants that the survey was carried out without notice to the appellants. The map prepared by the survey officer appointed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code shows encroachment as alleged by the respondents (original plaintiffs). In so far as plea of adverse possession is concerned, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. As the suit was on title, the same will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period of limitation of 12 years starts on the date on which possession of a defendant becomes adverse. In absence of a specific case made out by the appellants that their possession of the encroached portion became adverse to the knowledge of the original plaintiffs from a particular point of time, the Courts below were justified in not accepting the contentions raised by the appellants. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ... 3 ... JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE