:1: 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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.555 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.555 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.555 OF 2008 Dhulappa Bhimanna Pujari & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Sou. Gurusidhawwa Bhutali Pujari & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.T.S.Ingale , adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 16th September, 2008. DATE: 16th September, 2008. DATE: 16th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who are the original defendant nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before this Court are the original plaintiffs while the respondent nos.4 to 7 are the original defendant nos.3 to 7. 2. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the plaintiff no.1’s sister. The suit property bearing gat no.399/3 admeasuring 5 H 8 R belonged to the father of the plaintiff no.1. Plaintiffs filed regular civil suit no.24 of 1999 for possession of the suit property against the defendants. According to them, father of the plaintiff no.1 namely Dhulappa was personally cultivating the land. He had two cousins namely, Dharyappa and Bhimanna. Respondents are the sons and other legal representatives of the said Dharyappa and Bhimanna. They are the cousins of the plaintiff no.1. :2: According to the plaintiffs, after death of her father, plaintiff no.1 had given suit land to her cousins, Bhimsha and Dharyappa on the condition that they would take fodder only from the land. After death of Dharyappa, his legal representatives and after death of Bhimanna his legal representatives, who are all defendants in the matter, were cultivating land on same condition. The plaintiffs intended to cultivate the land themselves and, therefore, the defendants were told to hand over the possession but the defendants refused. Therefore, the suit for possession was filed. Defendants contended that since 1970 names of Dharyappa and Bhimanna were entered into cultivation column of the revenue record. Suit was filed in 1998 and, therefore, the suit is barred by the limitation. The trial Court rejected the contention of the limitation raised by the defendants and decreed the suit. Defendants preferred regular civil appeal no.67 of 2005. That appeal was also dismissed. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that the suit is not barred by the limitation. Against this, the defendant nos.1 and 2 have preferred the second appeal. 3. On perusal of the record, it appears that though according to the plaintiffs, defendants were in permissive possession for cultivation of the land on certain conditions since 1970, names of Bhimanna and Dharyappa were recorded in the cultivation column and :3: that continues, which was never challenged. Merely, because names of these two persons were entered into cultivation column, suit filed by the plaintiffs can not be barred by the limitation. Defendants had neither pleaded that their possession was hostile to the title of the plaintiffs nor they had pleaded that they had become tenants over the land. Taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, I find no substantial question of law involved in the present matter. 4. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)