1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 213 of 2007 Shashikant Daulatrao Gujar Vs. Sukhibai Ramteke & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri W. G. Paunikar Adv. for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 3 rd June, 2008. Heard Shri Paunikar learned counsel for the appellant. Appellants had instituted a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and confirmation of possession. It is alleged that defendant No.11 had entered into an agreement of sale of suit field with one 2 Sukhdev Ramteke. Sukhdeo Ramteke in pursuance of the said agreement instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against defendant No.11 in which decree for specific performance was passed which was confirmed by the appellate Court. Plaintiffs submit that they came to know of this decree in the year 1993. They submit that the said property was ancestral property and the plaintiffs and defendant No.11 were the joint owners of the suit property. They also submit that they have a share in the suit property. Defendant No. 11 therefore did not alone have a right to sell the suit property. They submit that they have instituted a suit for declaration and possession only after they came to know of the earlier suit and decree in the year 1993. Defendant had contended that the decree was passed in the civil suit and 3 Sukhdeo was bonafide purchaser of the property. The civil suit was instituted because defendant No. 11 did not execute the sale deed as per agreement. Court had passed a decree. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the plaintiffs had come to know of the earlier civil suit in the year 1987 and they had also come to know that decree was passed against defendant No.11 in that suit in the year 1987. If the plaintiffs had come to know of the decree in the year 1987 the suit should have been filed within 3 years from 1987. The suit was filed in the year 1993. Learned Judge of the trial Court had rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. First appellate Court had rightly concurred with the findings recorded by the 4 trial Court. The suit was barred by limitation and the same was dismissed by trial Court and the decree was rightly confirmed by the trial Court. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk