IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2008 SHRI. VITHAL JAIDEV VERNEKAR (EXPIRED) THROUGH LR\'S ... Appellant Versus SHRI VITHAL DEVARSHI NAIK BANAULIKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for respondent 1(a) and 2. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 19th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1(a) and 2. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2008 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge, Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2007 allowing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21st November, 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil suit no.104/1993. 3. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed seeking reliefs of ejectment, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and claimed adverse possession in respect of the suit property. Their case was that they were performing the religious activities like bhajan, 'dhalos' and staging of dramas occasionally in the suit property for a considerable number of years and, therefore, they have acquired right to the suit property by way of adverse possession. 4. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the defendants and consequently, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree holding that possession of the defendants was permissive and they have not proved their title by way of adverse possession. 5. Mr. Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have proved that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession and the learned first appellate Court has misinterpreted the ratio of the judgment in the case of The State Bank of Travancore Vs. Arvindan Kunju Panicker and others; AIR 1971 SC 996. He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi; AIR 1981 SC 707 in support of his submission that the defendants have established adverse possession and consequently, the title to the suit property. 6. Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1(a) and 2 supported the impugned judgment and decree and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others Vs. Revamma and others; (2007)6 SCC 59 submitted that the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the appellants/ defendants have not established adverse possession in respect of the suit property. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record and judgments relied upon, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that the defendants/ appellants have not acquired any right by way of adverse possession and that the possession of the defendants was permissive cannot be said to be perverse finding or a finding not borne out from the evidence on record. Looking to the nature of the activities carried on by the defendants and having regard to the evidence led by the parties, in my opinion, the lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court. In my opinion, the plea of adverse possession taken by the defendants has not been established on the basis of admitted and proved facts. In my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA