1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2009 Dnyaneshwar Shankar Kashid .. Appellant Vs. Laxman Balasaheb Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the appellant. Mr. D.V. Walawalkar Senior Counsel i/b Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009. P.C. 01. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 02. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 1995 on 30th December, 1994 claiming declaration of ownership and possession of the City Survey No. 379 situated at village Akurdi, Tq.- Haveli, District- Pune. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit property and in 1990 the defendants made encroachment on the said plot of land. Therefore, he filed suit for possession. The defendants however, contended that, the said plot was given in gift to their grand-father Gulabrao by Patloji Rajaram Kashid , grand-father of the 2 plaintiff on 06.02.1933 by a registered-deed and since then defendants and their forefathers have been possession of the said plot. They have made construction of the house long before 1990 when according to the plaintiff encroachment was made. Therefore, according to them, the suit was barred by limitation and alternatively they claimed that, they had perfected their title by adverse possession. 03. The trial Court came to conclusion that, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title on the suit land and also held that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed. Regular Civil Appeal No. 614 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff also came to be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 04. There is no dispute that, in the year 1933 the gift was made by grand-father of plaintiff in favour of grand-father of the defendants. The plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that, the defendants’ family was in possession of the plot since 1933. Record reveals that, some time in 1982 the defendant also made construction of the house on that property. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances, there is no material to show that the concurrent finding of the facts given by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove his 3 title is either perverse or per se wrong and against the record. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that, mere long possession does not get title by adverse possession. However, after perusal of the evidence, it appears that the defendants basically claimed title over the property on the gift and alternatively they had claimed adverse possession. In view of the facts and the evidence, it appears that the defendants and their forefathers claimed the title and possession of the property on the basis of gift-deed, execution of which is not in dispute. Therefore, I find no question of law involved in present appeal. 05. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)