1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (cas) No. 696 of 2011 (In SA St. No. 11832/11) Ashish s/o Vijay Andhare & anr. ...Versus... Smt. Vaishali wd/o Suryakant Madiwale & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.D. Chopde Advocate for applicants. Mr. J.J. Chandurkar Advocate for Res.1,2 & 3. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 30.09.2011. Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the second appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned. CAO No. 696/11 is disposed of. SA St. No.11832/11 Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that there is 2 no semblance of right in the appellants to be in possession of the suit property. The only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that admittedly the appellants have been paying taxes of the suit plot and there is evidence on record to show that they have been residing in the plot in question since 1997. According to him, the long possession needs to be taken care of as adverse possession and consequently the possession could not be taken pursuant to the decree in which the appellants were not party. In that view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to remain in possession at least till the time they are evicted in accordance with law. Per contra, Mr.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the original owner of the house Madhulata has been found to be not in possession but the suit property stands in her name and that is concurrently recorded by the courts below. The appellants could not make out any legal right to remain in possession. The plea of adverse possession allegedly now argued has not at all been proved in the courts below. For the first time, this plea cannot be allowed to be raised in absence of satisfactory evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders made by the courts below, 3 it is seen that the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the title of the suit property remained with Madhulata and she being the rightful owner, the appellants have no right whatsoever to interdict the process of taking possession pursuant to the lawful decree passed by the courts below. It is an admitted position that the appellants did not have any semblance of right muchless legal right. The only contention about long possession does not at all help the appellants in view of the fact that what is necessary is hostile possession and their long possession is not recognized by the courts of law. In the result, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. Hence, S.A. St. No. 11832/11 is dismissed. Judge /TA/