1 S.A. No819.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.819 OF 2004 Sheshrao Jija Aghav & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Pralhad S/o Bhikaji Aghav ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the appellants ... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendants Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Bade Patil, learned Counsel for 2 S.A. No819.2004 the appellant submitted that even the plaintiffs witnesses have not supported the case of the plaintiff. One of the witness has admitted that since 10 to to 12 years the defendant is in possession of the said property and is tying the cattle since then. Even one of the witness has admitted that the defendant and plaintiff both are owners of the said property. The learned Counsel further submitted that plaintiff has not proved his ownership and as such is not entitled for possession. On the other hand defendant has proved his longstanding possession through evidence of witness. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. According to Shri Bade Patil, learned Counsel, the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The plaintiff has proved Exh. 30, which is of the year 1963 and said document is more than thirty year old document. As per Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, there is presumption of the due execution of the said 3 S.A. No819.2004 document. The defendants proved the said document by evidence of the attesting witness In the light of the same, it cannot be said that there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the plaintiff about his ownership. Moreover, the defendant to establish adverse possession has given the specific dates when he entered into the possession and the date when his possession has become adverse to that of the plaintiff. No Such details are given. 4. In that light of above, Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*