IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2009 SMT. MARIA MAGDALENA ADUZINDA FERNANDES, REPR. BY MARIA E. C. DE VISITACAO DE SILVA THROUGH LR'S ... Appellant Versus SMT. CECILIA GURJAO AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th March, 2010 P.C.:- Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant. The dispute between the parties is regarding a house known as "Predio de Casas" situated at Panaji. The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs claiming right to the same through Jose and Catarina Cruz. The suit was also filed claiming a right by adverse possession contending that the Plaintiffs were in possession from the year 1932 to the year 1967. According to the Plainiffs themselves the Plaintiffs were ousted from the possession of the house in the year 1967. The suit was filed on 13-6-1984 for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits much beyond the period prescribed. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court by Judgment dated 2-4-2004, inter alia, holding that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove that the Plaintiffs were in possession from 1932 to 1967. Both the Courts below have also held that the plaintiffs could not have acquired any title to the suit house through Jose and Esmeralda Souza, the son and daughter-in-law of the said Jose Fernandes and Catarina Cruz and that the Defendants had acquired title through Domingos and Josefa Rodrigues, the other son and daughter-in-law of the said Jose and Catarina(the family chart is at page 17 of the paper book). Shri Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-plaintiff, and referring to and relying on Article 2003 of the Civil Code, 1867 has submitted that Deodita Fernandes, namely the legal representative of the said Domingo and Josefa could have acquired only usufuctory right to the said house and the title thereto would have gone collaterally to the Plaintiffs. Learned Counsel submits that this is a substantial and important question which is required to be decided by this Court. He may be right but such a question need not be examined in a time barred suit. In my view, it is not necessary to deal with the above said submission of the learned Counsel. The finding of the learned trial Court is that the Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit house from the year 1932. According to the Plaintiffs themselves they have not been in possession of the house from the year 1967. The contention of Shri Dessai that they had filed inventory proceedings, certainly could not have extended the period of limitation to file a suit for declaration or for recovery of possession. The suit for recovery of possession filed by the Plaintiffs was clearly and hopelessly time barred and on that count alone ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below. I find there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.