1 SA103/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2010 Mahadu Gyanoba Bombade and others Appellants V E R S U S Anusayabai Vithal Godbharle and others Respondents Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate, instructed by Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This second appeal is challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondents / plaintiffs have proved their case that they are entitled to possession of 3 acre 19 guntha land from the appellants being their father’s property. 3. Having gone through the Judgments of the Courts below, the only question that could be raised at this stage is, whether the suit filed by the respondents / plaintiffs was within limitation ? In order to examine this aspect, one must know the facts of the case. 4. The appellants are sons of Gyanoba, who was brother of Chander. The respondents are daughters of Chander. The suit property is Chander’s share in ancestral property of this family. Chander died sometime in 1951. He was survived by his wife Mathurabai and respondents / plaintiffs i. e. four daughters. Mathurabai got married second time in 1953 and left the joint family. The respondents / plaintiffs thus became owners of the share of 2 SA103/10 Chander. They were then admittedly young and minor. Thereafter, they got married and now they are staying with their husbands. They came to the Court with a pleading that since their land was cultivated by the appellants, they used to get share in the produce, and this was going on till recently. They said that the appellants stopped giving them share in the produce in 1998 and so the suit was filed in 1999. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the evidence that has come on record would prove that the respondents / plaintiffs did not get share in the produce at all, and so, he suggested that the appellants could prove that their possession of the suit property was adverse to the respondents / plaintiffs. Having gone through the evidence of respondent No. 1, I do not agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. The evidence on record does not suggest that the respondents / plaintiffs did not get share in the produce of the suit property. Both the Courts below on this held that the suit was within limitation and that the respondents / plaintiffs have proved that they were getting share in the produce of the suit property. The appeal should therefore fail. The second appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/sa/103/10/10/10/11