1 53 sa.573.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2011 Krushna Dadu Chougule. ... Appellant Versus Dashrath Dadu Chougule and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. T.S.Ingale for the Appellant. Mr. P.D.Dalvi for the Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. 2 The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff. The Respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession of the suit land. The Appellant is the Defendant No.1. The suit was contested by the Appellant. One of the contentions raised by the Appellant is that he has become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The contention is that the Appellant has been in possession of the suit land 2 53 sa.573.11 since 1976. The trial Court passed a decreed for possession against the Appellant and the Appeal Court has confirmed the the said decree. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the possession of the Appellant from the year 1976 has been admitted by the Respondent No.1. Placing reliance on the revenue record, he submitted that the long standing possession of the Appellant has been established. He submitted that there was a specific plea of adverse possession raised by the Appellant in the written statement. He submitted that if the averments made in paragraph No.7 of the plaint are considered alongwith the revenue record, it is clear that the suit has been belatedly filed after the lapse of twelve years from the date on which the cause of action arose. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Courts below have made a reference to the earlier suit being Suit No. 1076 of 1992 to which the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 as well as the Respondent No.2 were parties. The finding of both the Courts 3 53 sa.573.11 below is that the said suit was admittedly in respect of the suit land in which the Appellant claimed that his possession was referable to lawful title. Admittedly, the Appellant did not assert hostile possession in the said suit filed in the year 1992. In the present suit, the Appellant has asserted hostile possession. In this context, the finding of the Appellate Court is that as in the earlier suit filed in the year 1992, the Appellant had not asserted hostile possession, it is not made clear by the Appellant as to from what date his possession became hostile. After having found that in the earlier suit, the Appellant claimed that his possession was referable to lawful title, on the failure of the Appellant to prove the date from which his possession became hostile, the Courts below have negatived the plea of adverse possession. Perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the only point urged before it appears to be of the plea of adverse possession and the plea of bar of limitation. The suit for possession was based on title. Hence, in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation will be the date on which the possession of the Defendant becomes 4 53 sa.573.11 adverse to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Courts below after rejecting the pleat of adverse possession, have rightly held that the suit was filed within limitation. 5 No substantial question of law arises. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that there is a standing crop of the Appellant on the suit land which is likely to be harvested in March 2012 and therefore, the execution of the decree for possession be postponed. This factual statement is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. 7 A reasonable time deserves to be granted to the Appellant. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs ; ii. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the second appeal, the decree for possession shall not be 5 53 sa.573.11 executed till 31 st March, 2012 subject to condition that the Appellant shall file an undertaking in this Court within a period of four weeks from today, stating therein that he will not create any third party rights and will not part with possession of the suit land ; iii. Civil Application No. 1390 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]