1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR S.A.NO.116 of 2010 Ashrabai w/o Atmaram Dhakane ..vs.. Sakharam Tau Sonunue (dead) through L.Rs.Dhrupadabai wd/o Sdakharam Sonune and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.T.M.Zaheer Adv.h/f Adv. P.B.Patil for the appellant. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010. This appeal is preferred against the two concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The appellant had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants. It is her case that Gat No.7, admeasuring 4 hectare 67 Ares and gat No.5, admeasuring 4 hectare 63 Ares were owned by one Bhika. There was a partition amongst sons of Bhika. The plaintiff is the daughter of one of the sons of Bhika and Sakharam - defendant no.1 is her uncle. It is her contention that Sakharam - defendant no.1 (now deceased) had instituted a suit for possession of 2 the suit property. The said suit was decreed in the year 1967 yet defendant no.1 did not obtain the possession of the suit property and the suit property continued to be in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, says that the suit property has been in her possession by way of adverse possession and she has, therefore, perfected the title of the same. The suit was contested by the defendants. It is their contention that the plaintiff is and was not in possession of the suit property. The learned Judge of the trial court found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and there was no question of her being in adverse possession. The learned judge of the appellate court also concurred with the findings. A civil suit was filed by defendant no.1 against the plaintiff's father for declaration of the ownership. The said suit was decreed. The said judgment has assumed finality. It was rightly held by the courts below that the said findings in that suit operated as res judicata. As far as adverse possession is concerned, it appears from the judgment of the first appellate court that the name of the present plaintiff came to be recorded for the first time in the revenue record in the year 1988. Prior to that, it appears that from 1974 to 1988, 3 the name of defendant no.1 continued to be the occupant. Obviously, defendant no.1 was in possession from 1974 to 1988. If the period is to be reckoned from the year 1988 and the suit has been filed in 1990, obviously in 1990 itself the plaintiff had not completed period of tweleve years so as to claim adverse possession against the defendants. The courts below have rightly dismissed the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute