1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2008 Tanaji Balaji Lilke & Anr. ... Appellants (Orig. Defendants) Vs. Anandrao Sampatrao Bankar & Anr. Respondents (Orig. Plaintiff) Mr.V.Z.Kankaria, Advocate, for the appellants. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 21st August, 2008. DATE : 21st August, 2008. DATE : 21st August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned for both the parties. 2. This is the Second Appeal filed by the original defendants against the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below. The property in dispute is a shed admeasuring 4’ x 5’ situated on the land bearing City Survey No.1688 situated at Pimpalgaon, Taluka 2 Niphad. The property was previously owned by one Rajaram Fakira Gangurde. The plaintiff/respondet purchased the said property on 11.7.1975. Another property situated on the southern side was also purchased by him on 10.10.1991. Previously, there were disputes between the plaintiff and one Panch Koli and therefore the plaintiff’sfather and his vendor Rajaram had filed Regular Civil Suit No.56/1975 for declaration of title. That suit was decreed on 9.12.1982. Against that said Panch Koli had preferred Appeal No.69 of 1983 which was dismissed on 26.10.1988. Thereafter, he filed Second Appeal No.609/1989. That appeal was also dismissed and thus, the title of Rajaram and his purchasers i.e. the plaintiffs was confirmed. According to the plaintiffs, during the pendency of the said litigation, the defendants, in collusion with Panch Koli, encroached upon the suit property and erected a shed contending that they were the tenants of Panch Koli. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession. The defendants contended that the property in dispute bears Grampanchayat No.728(C) and it was taken from Panch Koli on rent basis and is not part of the property of plaintiffs.. They also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant no.1 also claimed to have perfected the title by adverse possession. 3 3. Several issues were framed. After hearing the evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The trial Court rejected the contention of the respondent No.1 that he had become owner by adverse possession. The trial Court also found that the suit is within limitation. With these findings, the suit came to be decreed. Against that the defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.169 of 2001. That appeal also came to be dismissed by the appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 8.10.2007. 4. There appears no dispute that in the litigation between the plaintiff and Panch Koli, title of the plaintiff was established. The defendant no.1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was inducted by Panch Koli pending that litigation sometime in 1992. The Courts below also found that the defendants were trying to create confusion about the property,by contending that their shed is property bearing Grampanchayat No.728C because no such number is in existence. With this, both the Courts held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the defendants are encroachers and the suit is within limitation. In view of the admission of the defendant no.1 that they were inducted 4 in 1992 and the fact that suit was filed in 1993, it could not be barred by limitation. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present matter. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that this Court has admitted two other connected appeals being Second Appeal No.1032 of 2006 and S.A.No.1054 of 2006. However, on perusal of the order of admission, it appears that in those two matters, the trial Court had come to conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, while without considering that aspect of limitation, the appellate Court had passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court found that the question of law in respect of limitation was involved. No such point is involved in the present matter as there is concurrent finding on the question of limitation. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed summarily. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application No.15 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)