1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2009 Shri Budhaji Shripat Patil ... Appellant v/s Shri Balaram Dagdu Mokashi & 10 ors. ... Respondents Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Dewal for respondent Nos.2/3, 2/4, 4/1, 7 & 8/2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff contending that the appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal filed by some of the defendants. It is contended that when only some defendants have preferred the appeal, it presupposes that others have accepted the decree. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellate Court could not have passed the order 2 allowing the appeal and disturbing the order of the Trial Court without there being any prayer on behalf of those defendants who have not filed an appeal. It is submitted that the Trial Court decree had attained finality in respect of those persons and, therefore, the appellate Court has committed an error by granting the appeal. It is then submitted that the appellate Court has erred in concluding that the suit was barred by limitation. It is pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff suffered the disability of being a minor when the names of the defendants were incorporated in the record of rights. It is urged that the period of limitation for a suit for possession in such a case is 12 years and, therefore, the plaintiff had filed the suit within that period. 2. In my opinion, there is no need to admit the appeal, as firstly, there is no prayer in the plaint for possession. In view of there being no prayer for possession, the limitation which was available to the plaintiff for filing the suit was within a period of three years after attaining the age of majority in the year 1974 and, therefore, he ought to have filed the suit within three years from that date. 3 3. Secondly, the mutation entries have been effected more than 30 years ago. The names of the defendants have been incorporated in the record of rights since 1961. No steps have been taken by the appellant to have those entries modified although he attained the age of majority in 1974. 4. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the appellate Court. 5. Appeal dismissed as no substantial questions of law arise in this matter. 6. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No. 586 of 2009 does not survive and stands dismissed as such. ..... 4