1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2009 Jagdish Shripatrao Patil & ors. ... Appellants v/s Sambhaji Ramji Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the appellants. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 29TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that two substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal, firstly, whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is beyond the period of limitation and secondly, whether the suit could have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs when it was filed for a declaration of the sale deed as null and void and alternate relief of possession of the suit property. 2 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration, possession and perpetual injunction. The defendants contested the suit by contending that they had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 7.5.1966. The plaint was amended and a declaration was sought that the sale was bogus and not binding on the plaintiff’s share as he had not executed the sale deed. 3. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the registered sale deed of 1966 could not be challenged in a suit filed in 2004 as it would be barred by limitation. This submission is without merit. The plaintiff has denied having executed the sale deed and therefore could not have been aware about the existence of the sale deed. As noted by the trial Court, the defendants did not care to prove the plaintiff’s signature on the sale deed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation, as rightly held by both the Courts below. 4. The suit as originally filed was for a declaration and injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants had 3 illegally taken over the possession of the suit property. As a consequence, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit property in the suit. The suit has accordingly been decreed. It has been declared that the sale deed does not bind the plaintiff. The defendants have been directed to hand over possession of the suit property which was forcibly taken by them from the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The defendants have also been restrained from obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property. The plaintiff has proved his case by leading cogent evidence. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact on the basis of this evidence. 5. In my opinion, no substantial questions of law arise in this case which are required to be determined in a second appeal. 6. Appeal dismissed. ..... 4