1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.508 of 1989 Mrs.Pushpalata Sambhaji Chavan..Appellant Age : 45 years V/s. 1. Gopal Daji Chavan, Age : 65 years 2. Smt Radhabai Vishnu Pokale, ..Respondents Age : 75 years 3. Smt Yamunabai Kashiram Tarphe Age : 70 years Mr.M.A.Utagikar i/b.Mr.S.S.Kudalkar, advocate, for the appellant Mr.V.S.Gokhale, advocate, for respondent No.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5TH MARCH,2008 JUDGMENT . The submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties were heard yesterday. The appeal is by the original defendant No.1 in a suit filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. In appeal there is a decree passed in favour of 2nd respondent/(2nd plaintiff) for possession of land admeasuring 20R 2 bearing Survey No.45/13 which is one of the suit properties. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 4th October, 1989 by passing following order. “Advocate for Appellant-defendant No.1 is heard. Respondents absent though said to have been noticed by Appellant. Admitted- the substantial question of Law being whether defendant 1 proved the acquisition of a proprietory or prescriptive title to the Land in suit bearing S.N.45/13 ?” 2. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. His submission is that plea of adverse possession has not been considered by the Appellate Court. He submitted that as necessary ingredients of the plea of adverse possession and consequently the perfection of the title by adverse possession were established by the appellant, a decree for possession could not have been passed in favour of the 2nd respondent. 3. It must be stated here that the appellant, who is the first defendant did not file any Written Statement. The first defendant/appellant merely adopted the Written Statement of the 2nd defendant in which the second defendant pleaded that she had 3 perfected her title to the suit property by adverse possession. Thus, the appellant has merely supported the plea of adverse possession raised by the second defendant. It is not case of the appellant that she herself is claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. The appellant has not stepped into witness box. The title of the 2nd respondent is already established. The suit was for possession on the basis of title. As the appellant has not established plea of adverse possession, in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the suit cannot be held as barred by limitation. 4. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)