1 SA 631.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocates for appellant. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present appellant is the original defendant. The plaintiff had filed Suit for possession on the basis of title contending that the defendant is the encroacher. The Trial Court decreed the Suit. In Appeal filed by the defendant, the appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment in the present Appeal. 2. Mr. Palodkar, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower appellate Court has failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction in as 2 SA 631.2010 much as it has only reproduced the reasonings given by the trial Court. He further contends that the plaintiff had filed Criminal case in the year 1992 contending that on 19/12/1992 the present appellant had encroached upon the said property. As per Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff should have filed the Suit within six months. As such, the present Suit filed in the year 2002 was not maintainable. The learned counsel contends that the Suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. 3. I have gone through the Judgment delivered by the Courts below. 4. The appellate Court while confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court, is not required to give elaborate reasonings. It has to deal with the reasonings given by the Trial Court only in case the appellate Court has reversed the finding of fact of the Trial Court. More over, the defendant was claiming himself to be the sub tenant over the said property. In an earlier litigation before the High Court, which culminated in the year 1997, it was held that the present defendant is not the tenant. As such, till the Judgment of the High Court, it will have to be held that the defendant was claiming his possession as permissive. The Suit is filed in the year 2002. In such circumstances, no question of limitation would arise. Even if the case of plaintiffs that the defendant has encroached in the year 3 SA 631.2010 1992 is to be considered, still the Suit would be within limitation as per Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Suits under Section 6 are meant for limited purpose and they would not govern the Suit filed by the persons on the basis of title. 5. In light of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 631.2010