IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.187 OF 2008. APPEAL NO.187 OF 2008. APPEAL NO.187 OF 2008. Anil Mohanrao Kolekar & Anr. ...Appellants Versus. Smt Ambubai Mahadeo Chapale (since deceased) through her heirs and legal representatives 1A. Balasaheb Mahadeo Chapale & Ors. ...Respondents Shri S.R.Page i/by Shri S.G.Thorat for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th MARCH, 2008. : 11th MARCH, 2008. : 11th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appeal is by the original defendants who have suffered a decree for possession in the suit property filed by the respondent. The decree for possession has been confirmed in the appeal. 2. The first submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the description of the suit property mentioned in the plaint is not correct. His submission is that though a specific contention was raised to that effect in paragraph No.1 of the written statement, no issue was framed by the trial Court. He submitted that there was no point for determination framed on this aspect. He, therefore, submitted that the issue relating to incorrect description of the property goes to the root of the matter and the respondents have not proved title to the suit property. : 2 : 2 : 2 : 3. I have considered the submissions. It must be stated here that even according to the case of the appellants they have taken the property from one Dinkar Sapate who claimed the property on the basis of an Agreement for Sale executed by the original plaintiff in his favour. Another important aspect of the case is that even in the first appeal, the appellants have pressed into service the plea of adverse possession. A point for determination has been specifically framed on the plea of adverse possession. The said plea of adverse possession has been negatived by both the courts below. The courts below have found that possession of the appellants was permissive. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. 4. After having argued plea of adverse possession in both the courts below, now the appellants cannot contend that the description of the suit property is not correct. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. 5. Civil Application No.507 of 2008 does not survive and the same is rejected. 6. At this stage, the learned advocate for the appellants seeks time to vacate. Considering the fact that the appellants are in possession of the suit : 3 : 3 : 3 : property for a long time, a reasonable time deserves to be granted. Hence, it is directed that notwithstanding the dismissal of the Second Appeal, decree for possession shall not be executed till 30th September, 2008 subject to the appellants filing usual undertaking to vacate in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. If the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated period, decree for possession will become executable immediately on expiry of period of six weeks. 7. Parties and the trial Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. Judge. Judge. Judge.