1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2151 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2151 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2151 OF 2006 Smt.Laxmibai P.Ramoshi & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Shri.Annasaheb Haibati Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Appellants. Mr.A.R.Baxi for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : JULY 10TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 10TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 10TH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 15th April, 2006 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Thane. By the said Judgment, the decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.121 of 1991 came to be set aside. The Appellants are the original Defendants in the said Special Suit No.121 of 1991 which was filed by the Respondent NO.1 herein for possession of a land bearing gut No.415 admeasuring 1 Hector 74R, bounded by, towards East-Gat No.416, towards West-Gat No.414, 2 towards South-Gat No.417 and towards North-boundary of Village Nagaj, of Village Kerewadi, Taluka Kavathe Mahakal, District Sangli. The Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff has purchased the said property by way of sale deed dated 1st September, 1955 from one Jaganath Nivrutti Satte. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he was dispossessed in the year 1955 by the Appellants herein. 2. The Appellants are claiming through one Pandu Ramoshi who owned the agricultural land bearing survey No.60/1 which is the subject matter of the suit. It appears that the said Ramoshi had borrowed a sum of Rs.25/- from one Jagannath Nivrutti Satte and therefore executed a sale deed in favour of the said Jagannath Satte in respect of the entire Survey No.60-1 admeasuring 6 acres and 27 Guntha by registered sale deed dated 18th August, 1953. The said Pandu Ramoshi had repaid Rs.100/- to the said Jagannth Satte as a consequence of which by a registered sale deed dated 1st August, 1955 the said Jagannath reconveyed, the property in question to Pandu Ramoshi. It appears that simultaneously part of the said survey No.60-1 admeasuring 4 acres and 20 Guntha was sold to the Respondents herein. The Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff 3 had thereafter filed the suit for possession of the said property on the ground that he was dispossessed in the year 1985. 3. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below as regards the Plaintiffs title to the property in question as also as regards limitation. The Courts below have held that the the Plaintiffs have proved their title to the property in question. In so far as the point of limitation is concerned, the Courts below have held that since the Plaintiffs had been dispossessed in the year 1985, the suit filed in the year 1991 is within limitation. The Courts below have also rejected the case of adverse possession of the Appellants. 4. In the instant Appeal, the Appellants had filed Civil Application No.1252 of 29006 invoking Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence, in as much as the Appellants wanted to produce the sale deed dated 1st August, 1955 by which the property was reconveyed to Pandu Ramoshi by the said Jagannath Satte. This Court by order dated 26th June, 2007 and modified by further order dated 8th April, 2008 had permitted the Appellants to produce the 4 said document. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants by Shri.Mankapure that the said document was not traceable at the time when the hearing of the said suit was going on and therefore the said document could not be produced in the said suit. However, the document has now been traced. Shri. Mankapure therefore submits that inview of the fact that both the Courts below have recorded a finding against the Appellant, in the absence of the said document the Judgment and decree which is appealed against be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration. 6. The document which has been permitted to be produced by Mr.Mankapure is the registered sale deed dated 1st September, 1955 reconveying the property to the said Pandu Ramoshi. A bare reading of the said document inter-alia discloses that what was reconveyed was only the area of 2 acre and 7 Guntha and not the entire area of Survey No.61/1 i.e. 6 acres and 27 Guntha. Obviously, the balance of the said area out of the said survey No.2 was conveyed to the Plaintiff vide sale deed dated 1st September, 1955. Pertinently, the 5 sale deed executed by the said Jagannth Satte in favour of the Respondents herein is also attested by Pandu Ramoshi through whom the Appellants are claiming. Therefore, the reasons for non producing the reconveyance dated 1st September, 1955 by the said Pandu Ramoshi, is obvious. Therefore, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the Lower Appellate Court as what was reconveyed to the Appellants was only the area of 2 acres and 27 Gunthas. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the case of the Appellants, that the scenario has now changed on account of said document of reconveyance dated 1st August, 1955, being available. 7. In my view, the challenge in the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 8. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application.1251 of 2006 does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.] 6