1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2010 Ramkrushna Gavinda Walase & Oths. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S Dashrath Ambadas Walase & another .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.D.Kasliwal , Advocate for appellant ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 07/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellants are the original defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4. Present respondent no. 1 has filed Suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. Both the Courts have decreed the suit holding that the original plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and is entitled for possession. 2. (i) Mr. A.D.Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit in view of the fact that the sale deed executed by the 2 defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 was valued at Rs. 1,09,000/- . (ii) According to him, the Suit is barred by limitation. (iii) The property was partitioned as is evidenced from the mutation entries and the relevant revenue record. (iv) The defendants are in possession since 1989 and the plaintiff claimed that he was dispossessed in 2005, which is against record. 3. Regarding the contention about the pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit property is the agricultural land susceptible to the land revenue. In such circumstances, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees would be in accordance with the land revenue. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had not sought any relief of cancellation or declaration in respect of the sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 is concerned, the same is not sustainable. The plaintiff need not seek any declaration or relief of cancellation in respect of the sale deed, to which he is not party or the instrument executed by the third party, who has no concern with the suit property. The contention regarding the partition having taken place and the property being allotted to the defendants in partition, the said submission also can not be legally sustainable in view of the fact that the partition can only be amongst the sharers. There can not be partition amongst the owner of the property and the stranger. In the present case, the defendants have not taken a plea of adverse possession. As such, the date when the defendants came in possession would not be relevant. The Suit filed by the plaintiff is based on title and as per Article 65 there would be no limitation except when the defendants pleads and proves the adverse possession. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 3 5. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] knp/ SA 596.2010