IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1607 OF 2007. Baburao Narayan Abdul ...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Anandrao Nanasaheb Shinde ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.Dilip Bodale, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.A.P.Kulkarni, Adv. For respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 17th OCTOBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Bodake, Adv. For the appellant and Mr.Kulkarni, Adv. For respondent. This second appeal is filed by original defendant. Respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title and possession of the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Respondent No.1 carried the appeal to the lower appellate court and the same was allowed by a judgment and order which is impugned in the present second appeal. Mr.Bodake, learned advocate submitted that the name of the appellant-defendant appeared in the record of rights of suit property since long and therefore in view of provisions of section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act a presumption ought to have been drawn in his 1 favour. He further submitted that the suit is barred by law of limitation and therefore was rightly dismissed by the trial Court, however the appellate court committed an error in giving the finding that the suit is within law of limitation. So far as the first contention of Mr.Bodake that in view of long standing entry of name in the record of rights presumption should have been drawn in his favour is concerned, I do not find any merit in as much as lower appellate court has after appreciating evidence on record has concluded that the respondent-plaintiff has proved his title to the suit property. As far as the second submission that the suit is not within limitation is concerned, the Appellate Court in para 14 of its judgment has observed that there are no pleadings in this regard by appellant/defendant in his written statement. The appellant/defendant also did not lead any evidence to substantiate his contention. Limitation is the mixed question of facts. In the absence of any pleadings or evidence to that effect this submission of Mr.Bodake also cannot be accepted. The lower appellate court has rightly answered the issue in question. Hence I find no reason to interfere in this appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of second appeal civil application No.1607 of 2007 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly. 17.10.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2