1 S.A.No.96/06 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.96 OF 2006. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for possession in respect of the properties detailed in para 4-A and 4-B of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has challenged the same in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Latange, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has disbelieved the theory of adverse possession as claimed by the defendants in respect of the 2 S.A.No.96/06 property detailed in para 4-B of the plaint. The Courts below have recorded contradictory finding. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that when the plaintiff has proved that he is the legal heir of Yadu then in such circumstances, decree for possession should have been passed. It was erroneous on the part of the Courts below to hold that the suit is barred by limitation. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court in a case of "Mohinder Singh (deceased by L.Rs.) and another Vs. Kashmira Singh" AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 215. 4. Mr.Brahme, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that in respect of the property detailed in para 4-A, the defendants are the owners pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 22.12.1924. He further contends that plaintiff would not have any right as Yadu died in the year 1990 and the property would be inherited by her widow Vithabai and son Bala. Thakubai 3 S.A.No.96/06 will not have any share. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. The fact that the defendants are in possession of the suit property continuously is not disputed. In respect of the properties detailed in para 4-A, the defendants are in possession pursuant to a registered instrument of sale. So also in respect of the properties detailed in para 4-B, the defendants are in continuous possession of the property since 1965. The suit is filed in the year 1989. The lower appellate Court had considered the fact that the said possession was continuous, hostile and as a owner of the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff is claiming through Thakubai who was daughter of Yadu, whereas the defendants are claiming through Parwatibai who was daughter of Bala. After death of Yadu, it was Vithabai and Bala who inherited the property. Even on this count, the plaintiff would not get any right of ownership. It has been further brought on record that the plaintiff has two sisters who are living, 4 S.A.No.96/06 who would have a share if the plaintiff would have a share in the suit property. 6. In light of the all the facts, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any right over the suit properties, interalia, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.14.12.2010. asp/office/sa96.06 5 S.A.No.96/06