1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2009. Virendra Ganeshprasad Purohit Vs. Geetabai Radheshyam Dubey & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N. R. Saboo Adv for appellant. Shri S. N.Pande Adv for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 9 th OCTOBER, 2009. This Second Appeal is preferred by original defendant No.4 Virendra against Geetabai who is sister of father of Virendra who instituted a suit for possession of the property. She claimed the property on the basis of a partition effected by her father. Suit property was given to her in the year 1965 in the said partition. The said property was under cultivation of appellants father and thereafter it was under 2 cultivation of appellant and Rajendra. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is entitled to possession of the property since she is the owner of the same. It is her contention that Virendra and Rajendra i. e. the present appellant and his brother have unauthorisely sold the said property to defendants 1 and 2 Manda and Manohar. Having come to know of this sale, she filed a suit for possession of the property which she got in partition. Said suit was resisted by the defendants i. e. the purchasers as well as sellers. The main contention that was raised by the purchaser was that they were the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. Rest of the defendants contention was that the suit was barred by limitation because the defendants were in adverse possession of the suit property. Trial Court held that suit property was given to the plaintiff in partition in 1965. Trial Court also found that plaintiffs property was looked after by Dr. Ganesh and defendants 1 and 2 were bonafide purchasers. Holding so the suit was decreed. 3 Feeling aggrieved the present appellant and his brother preferred first appeal before the District Judge. District Judge partly set aside the decree passed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the property put to the share of Bhuribai the mother, but she was entitled to possession of share which fell to her share. He negatived the contention that they have perfected title by adverse possession. Learned counsel for the respondent brings to my notice that original defendant No.1 the purchaser had preferred Second Appeal No. 44 of 2009 against the same judgment and decree. This Court has dismissed the said appeal in limine by order dated 03.02.2009. Since the appeal against the same judgment and decree has been dismissed by the Court I am left with no alternative but to dismiss this appeal also. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk