1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.808 OF 2008 1. Mrs. Kamini Sahebrao Mali, Age: 57 years, Occ: Household, 2. Bhaskar Phula Ahire, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labourer, 3. Narayan Shankar Pune, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 4. Ganpat Phula Ahire, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 5. Kailas Shamrao Pure, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labourer, 6. Kautik Vishnu Pawar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Labourer, 7. Sampat Phula Ahire, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labourer, 8. Bhagvan Zipre Sandanshiv, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 9. Ratan Narayan Pure, Age: 35 years, Occ: Labourer, 10. Kanhu Ganpat Ahire, Age: 27 years, Occ: Household, 11. Parbhudhar Yovhan Pathare, Age: 25 years, Occ: Labourer, 12. Kashinath Narayan Pure, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 2 13. Anil Bhagvan Sandanshiv, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 14. Sanjay Sampat Ahire, Age: 27 years, Occ: Labourer, 15. Babulal Sahebrao Mali, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 16. Ashabai Abhiman Sonvane, Age: 37 years, Occ: Household, 17. Sampat Ganpat Kolage, Age: 48 years, Occ: Labourer, 18. Dashrath Trymbak Gaikwad, Age: 55 years, Occ: Labourer, 19. Deubai Ganpat Kolage, Age: 53 years, Occ: Household, 20. Mirabai Tukaram Savant, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, 21. Sayaji Shankar Waghmare, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 22. Murlidhar Sona Tribhuvan, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 23. Dnyandeo Dashrath Gaikwad, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 24. Kacharu Namdeo Pawar, Age: 48 years, Occ: Labourer, 25. Bhaskar Namdev Pawar, Age: 35 years, Occ: Labourer, 26. Mrs. Shantabai Lakshman Pawar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, 3 27. Mrs. Shobha Ramesh Pandit, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 28. Sakharam Tukaram Lokhande, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labourer, 29. Ashok Gangadhar Ahire, Age: 31 years, Occ: Labourer, 30. Lakshaman Dagadu Ghule, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, 31. Maruti Murlidhar Sonavane, Age: 32 years, Occ: Labourer, 32. Ashok Lakshaman Ghule, Age: 33 years, Occ: Labourer, 33. Alka Bhausaheb Gangavane, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, 34. Tanhabai Daulat Mokal, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, 35. Navnath Murlidhar Hatkar, Age: 33 years, Occ: Labourer, 36. Baburao Bana Pawar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Labourer, 37. Kalpana Kishor Gavali, Age: 33 years, Occ: Household, 38. Vijay Lakshaman Ghule, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 39. Prakash Lakshaman Ghule, Age: 33 years, Occ: Labourer, 40. Onkarrao Ganpat Ahire, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labourer, 4 41. Pating Onkar Waghmare, Age: 35 years, Occ: Labourer, 42. Alka Sanjay More, Age: 30 years, Occ:Household, 43. Sunilk Bhagvan Sandanshiv, Age: 27 years, Occ: Labourer, 44. Gorakh Sahebrao Mali, Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer, 45. Arjun Sona Bhalerao, Age: 53 years, Occ: Labourer, 46. Dhurupadabai Ananda Dhaneshwar, Age: 63 years, Occ: Household, 47. Kadubai Tarabai Shaha, Age: 33 years, Occ: Household, 48. Ramesh Kondaji Waghmare, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labourer, 49. Balu Ganpat Ahire, Age: 29 years, Occ: Labourer, 50. Kalika Mata Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Savlevihir Khurd, Tq. Kopargaon, Through its Chairman Shri Anna Narhari Jamdhale, Age: 60 years, Occ: Labourer, All R/o. Savlevihir (Kd), Tq. Kopargaon,Dist.Ahmednagar. .. Appellants Versus 1. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation,Lakshmiwadi Mala, 5 Lakshmiwadi, Tq.Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. Through its Manager. 2. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, Head Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune 60 Through its Managing Director. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for appellants. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the respondents. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Second Appeal is preferred by as many as 50 hutment holders. They had filed suit (R.C.S. No. 543/1995) seeking injunction against the respondents. They apprehended eviction at the hands of the respondents. The trial Court held that the appellants failed to prove the plea of adverse possession and acquisition of prescriptive title on account of long standing 6 possession of the open plots which are admittedly owned by the respondents. The respondent had filed counter claim for recovery to the extent of 47 Ares of the land out of Gat No. 144, over which alleged encroachments were made by the appellants. The trial Court held that the appellants had encroached over the said disputed 47 Ares portion of the defendant's land. The defendant is a Corporation. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree while dismissing the appeal (R.C.A. No.14/2003). 3. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the judgments of the both Courts below, it is amply clear that the appellants could not establish as to since when they started claiming hostile title in respect of the plots over which each of them had raised huts. The plea of adverse possession was not substantiated by any tangible evidence. It need not be over emphasized that in order to acquire prescriptive title, the plaintiff is required to 7 prove that the possession was not only for long standing period but also was adverse to the knowledge of the owner. The plaintiffs, in the present case, failed to prove the following ingredients which are concomitants of the prescriptive title. (i) Nec vi (Not by violence ); (ii) Nec clan (Not by clandestinely); and (iii) Nec precario (Not by permission). In the absence of sufficient proof to establish the three ingredients as above, the appellants' possession cannot be regarded as adverse and therefore, the plea of prescriptive title was rightly turned down by the Courts below. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal is outside the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law is involved in the 8 Second Appeal. Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are granted six month's time to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of 47 Ares land to the respondents. In the meanwhile, however, the Government is at liberty to consider request of the appellants for regularisation of the hutments. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application No. 11657 of 2008 and hence stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] sut/NOV09/sa808.08