CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION v. Shankar Baba Koli

Judgment

1. Both Second Appeals conveniently disposed a common Judgment. Both Second Appeals admitted Appeals 10th January

1989. While admitting Court observed Appeals admitted Grounds No.9 10 Ground No.9 respectively. Grounds Nos.9 and 10 of Second Appeal No.22 of 1981 are as under: (9) The Appellate Court failed Appellant’s possession 1956 admitted brother Respondents, shifted Respondents title and possession within twelve years prior to the suit. (10) The Appellate Court rightful assert process within limitation period, forever extinguishes and the possessory owner gets the good title to the property. Ground No.9 of Second Appeal No.23 reads as under: (9) The forward process period, Appellate Court rightful assert law, within limitation forever extinguishes possessory title. In present case, held that the title of the Respondents has been extinguished. Though substantial questions specifically admission framed Second Appeals, obvious Court grounds 9 10 Second Appeal No.22 1989 ground 9 Second Appeal No.23 1989 substantial questions accordingly I learned Counsel appearing Appellants Appeals questions incorporated grounds. As copies Judgment Courts Second Appeal No.23 destroyed, I record a 1989 compilation containing the said Judgments tendered by the Advocate for the Appellants.

2. The Appellant Second Appeal No.22 1989 Appellant No.1 Second Appeal No.23

1989. Respondents the Appeals same. The The Appeals parties respect property. Civil Suit No.46 1982 Respondents against Appellants Second Appeal No.23

1989. The subject matter Grampanchayat House Nos.49 50 situated Patwardhan Kuroli, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The Respondents property ancestral property Appellants Appeal No.23 1989 right, same. The Respondents Appellant No.1 Pitambar granted permission premises. Instead vacating premises, Pitambar entered record Grampachayat respect premises. He Regular Civil Suit No.317 Second interest 1980 The against Respondents permanent injunction. Respondents Appellants Second Appeal No.23 1989 unauthorised possession property. In plaint Pitambar concerned, asserted property possession ancestors 60 openly continuously owners thereof. In allegation made that the Respondents were trying to dispossess him.

3. The Respondents possession contested Appellants Second Appeal No.23 1989 contending property possession ancestors 60 perfected adverse possession. In Pitambar, Respondents written statement contended possession Pitamber merely permissive possession owners of the suit property, they are entitled to recover possession of the suit property.

4. In Respondents concerned, Court dismissed suit. The Pitambar decreed Court. Court Pitambar perfected The possession property adverse possession. Separate appeals Respondents District Court. The District Court separate Judgments allowed Appeals. The Pitambar dismissed possession Respondents decreed. The Appellate Court Pitambar failed establish adverse possession Respondents established ownership. The Second Appeal No.23 1989 arises Respondents the Second Appeal No.22 of 1989 arises out of the suit filed by the said Pitamber.

Shri Railkar learned Counsel appearing Appellants Appeals invited attention pleadings. He pointed ancestors Pitambar perfected property adverse possession Pitambar claiming through them. recorded He submitted findings Appellate Court, crystal adverse possession established the said Pitambar. He submitted that the suit filed by the said Pitambar ought to have been decreed.

6. In Respondents concerned, submitted Article 64 Limitation Act, 1963, possession within a period 12 dispossession Respondents possession for last about 60 years, the suit was barred by limitation. None appears for the Respondents.

7. In I considered submissions Shri Railkar. Second Appeal No.22 1989, learned Additional District Judge adverted regarding perfecting settled principles adverse possession. After considering evidence record, learned Judge Appellant failed establish hostile possession. He record rights Pitambar 1982 itself cannot equated assertion hostile title. The learned Judge assuming standing possession Pitambar, itself sufficient conclusion perfected adverse possession. In Appeal preferred Respondents challenging dismissal suit, learned Additional District Judge finding Court possession within limitation. The learned Additional District Judge Respondent possession title, it will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act,

8. Shri Railkar invited attention plaint Pitambar deposition. Though specific pleadings regarding perfection adverse possession, pleading effect paragraph 4 a plaint. A perusal deposition Pitambar ownership property Respondents. In deposition Respondents concerned house. In deposition itself Pitambar asserted hostile title. All stated property possession father a time. father It asserted hostile title. He admitted cross-examination appeared property

1980. He examined brother Respondent No.1. Apart deposing regarding standing possession, evidence the mother of the Respondent No.1 is also not helpful to Pitambar for establishing his hostile title.

9. The perpetual injunction Pitambar title. His contention perfected property adverse possession. Considering evidence pleadings I Appellate Court holding adverse possession established Pitambar. Hence cannot succeed getting perpetual injunction standing possession. Once adverse possession established, Respondents regarding permissive possession of Pitambar has to be accepted.

10. In Appeal arising a possession Respondents, a finding recorded Appellate Court Respondents established title. The finding cannot favour Pitambar claimed adverse possession. Once adverse possession established Pitambar, Respondents succeed. The Respondents 1963 title, Article 65 Limitation limitation running Act possession Defendant becomes adverse. Obviously Respondents within limitation therefore, Appellate Court, if decree for possession was passed in favour of the Respondents.

11. No substantial question arises Second Appeals. The Second Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge.