1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.404 OF 2006. Subhash S/o Vishwanath Jadhav and another ... Appellants. Versus Venkat S/o Subhash Jadhav and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the appellants. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 27.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appeal is by the original defendant. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession on the basis of title. The said suit 2 came to be dismissed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff could not prove his exclusive ownership and the sale-deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence came to be conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his ownership over the suit property and that the defendant No.1 could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The lower appellate Court passed the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Mr.Kharosekar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that even if the sale deed is perused, the same is in respect of property bearing S.No.21/A, whereas the plaintiff has claimed possession of S.No.21/2 and as such the suit property is not one and the same of which plaintiff claims ownership. He also further submitted that the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box and the Power of Attorney Holder 3 has deposed. The evidence of said Power of Attorney Holder can not be considered. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The lower appellate Court on scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary has come to the conclusion that the boundaries as detailed tally with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. As such according to appellate Court, there was no impediment to come to the conclusion about the ownership of the plaintiff. Regarding the evidence of Power of Attorney Holder is concerned, it is trite law that Power of Attorney Holder can not depose regarding the personal knowledge of a party but can depose as a witness. The Power of Attorney Holder also can depose regarding the matters within his knowledge. In the present case the Power of Attorney Holder was none another but the mother who has purchased the property on behalf of the minor. As such it can not be said that the Power of Attorney Holder did not have any personal knowledge about the 4 transaction. 4. In light of the above facts when the plaintiff was owner of the property, the defendant No.1 could not have sold the said property to defendant Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Kharosekar, also raised the issue of limitation contending that from the date of his dispossession, the suit is not filed within 12 years. The suit is based on title. Unless the defendants plead and prove adverse possession, the question of limitation would not arise in a suit based on title. As such, no substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa40406 5