1 SA.No.509.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2005 1. Vitthal Shamrao Potbhare and others ... Appellants V E R S U S 1. Kalyan S/o Nivrutti yede and others ... Respondents ... Mr. S.V.Chandole,Advocate for Appellants Smt. V.B.Deshmukh,Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Salunke,Advocate for respondent Nos 9, 10/1, 10/2 and 10/3 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings. The appellant/plaintiff claimed ownership of suit land on the basis of adverse possession. The respondents or their pre- decessor in title objected to such possession. In 1963, the proceeding under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the appellants and others, in respect of the suit land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in that 2 SA.No.509.05 proceeding took over possession of the entire suit land, but in 1965 he held that both parties deserved possession to the extent of half portion each. Thus, the appellant-plaintiff took possession of half portion of suit land. In 1968, the opponent of the appellant- Chandrabhagabai filed a suit for possession etc. In that suit, the learned civil Judge Senior Division, Beed held that the appellant-plaintiff had proved his title to the suit land by adverse possession. For this reason and for other reasons Chandrabhagabai's suit was dismissed. Chandrabhagabai then filed an appeal before this Court and this Court held that Chandrabhagabai could not have filed suit and it deserved to be dismissed, as not tenable. The High Court also held that in such situation the learned Civil Judge Senior Division could not have decided the issue of adverse possession etc. Despite of this, findings recorded in the year 1972, the appellant kept quiet till 1979 and filed this suit at belated stage. The Courts below held that the suit was barred by limitation and that finding of adverse possession recorded in above mentioned 3 SA.No.509.05 suit bearing No. 28 of 1968 would not operate as res-judicata. In view of this position I do not find any substantial question of arise in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/