IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2008 Sou. Rukminibai Laxman Shirvale...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Tukaram Kondiba Jadhav ...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.A.Rajan with Mr.M.K.Shukla & S.R.Dubey, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 21st NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Rajan, learned advocate for the appellant. Appellant is original defendant No.1. Respondent's suit for declaration and injunction came to be decreed by the trial Court. Trial Court' s decree though challenged by the appellant before lower appellate Court same was confirmed. 2. The respondent-plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. However the appellant/defendant claim that they have perpetuated their title by adverse possession In the alternative they also claim title by adverse possession. In support of that contention the relied on mutation entry. It is settled law that mutation entries are effected for fiscal purpose and same will not create an extinguish title in the property. In order to perpetuate title by adverse possession the appellant must admit ownership of respondent and claim possession adverse to the interest of the respondent. Nothing of that sort is brought on record in the present case. In the absence of any animus 1 mere long possession will not help appellant/defendant to contend that he has become owner by adverse possession. Both the lower courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded their findings. I do not see any reason to interfere in the second appeal. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. In view of disposal of second appeal civil application No.1533/08 does not survive and same also stands disposed of. 21.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2