1 S.A. No. 530.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 530 OF 2010 Shri Aaba Soma Wagh .. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Kasinath Nanaji Mahar ...RESPONDENT ... Shri. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is Defendant’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession against the present appellant. Both the Courts decreed the suit. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant with all his persuasive skill at his 2 S.A. No. 530.10 command submitted that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of the provisions of Bombay Inferior Vatan Abolition Act. More particularly Section 3 of the said Act. According to the learned Counsel the jurisdiction would only vest with the Collector and the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred. 3. The learned Counsel further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, in as much as in the year 1987 itself the present defendant is inducted in possession, and the suit is filed in the year 1999 i.e. after twelve years. The mutation entry to that effect was also sanctioned in the revenue record. As such, the suit deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below. It is undisputed that the suit property is a ‘Mahar Hadola Vatan’ land allotted to the plaintiff. The defendant / 3 S.A. No. 530.10 present appellant under oral agreement was inducted in possession and since then he is in possession of the property. The present appellant claims protection only on the basis of oral agreement. Though the mutation entry recorded in the year 1987, and the said land is ‘Mahar Hadola Vatan’ land, still jurisdiction of Civil Court would not be barred from entertaining the suit for possession. The Civil Court was not required to decide the question of nature of Inam or Vatandar or whether the defendant is an unauthorised holder of the land. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 would always be invoked. 5. So far as limitation part is concerned, the defendant claims to be in possession since 1987, to substantiate his claim has filed mutation entry on record. The entry of the defendant was not by force or by fraud. As such, Article 64 would not apply. The land is restricted land, the theory of adverse possession is also not proved. Moreover, in case of restricted land that the defence also would not 4 S.A. No. 530.10 be permissible. 6. In that view of the matter, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, and same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*530.10SA/61210.