IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2008 Babaji Laxman Chudaji ...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Vithu Dhavu Shelke ...... ...... ...... Respondent. Ms.Prachi Khandage i/by M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 8th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocate for the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff. His suit for permanent, mandatory injunction and possession was decreed by the trial court. Consequently respondent came to be restrained permanently from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the suit property excluding of 3 suit houses (huts) admeasuring one hut by 50 ft. X 20ft and two huts by 20 ft. X 18 ft. each. The appellant being aggrieved by the trial Court' s decree refusing relief in respect of aforesaid three huts preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court however after hearing both the sides dismissed the appeal and hence the present second appeal is been filed. 2. The lower courts below held that the huts are in existence since 1 1954 or atleast since 1968 and the suit is filed in the year 1982. However suit is not filed within a period of 12 years. The Courts below took note of the appellant' s admission that he was visiting the suit property every year during sowing season of paddy and other crops and therefore an inference was drawn that he was aware of the construction of huts. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances both the lower courts observed that the suit is hit by principles of latches so far as relief for removal of huts is concerned. In my considered view there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. In view of disposal of second appeal civil application No. 697/07 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 8.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2