1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 141/2010 (Smt. Mulisabai wd/o Natthulal Gupta (dead) thr. Smt.Sakunbai Kishorilal Gupta VERSUS A.P.M.C., Tirora) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Tembhare, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the legal heir of the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession and permanent injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff’s land. The land was allotted by the Government in the year 1973 to the plaintiff-Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The suit was instituted by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee in the year 1986 for possession and permanent injunction. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The defendant pleaded that the defendant had encroached upon the Government land and the proceedings for regularization of her possession over the land was pending 2 before the concerned authorities. The defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as the defendant was in possession of the land since the year 1964. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial and the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that it was the owner of the suit land and was entitled to possession of the same from the defendant. The trial Court framed an additional issue of adverse possession and held that the defendant had failed to prove that she became the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Both the Courts held that the suit was filed by the plaintiff within the prescribed period of limitation. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Even though, there may be some incorrect observations in the judgment passed by the trial and the first appellate Court in regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation, as the defendant had not specifically raised the plea of adverse possession. On a perusal of the written statement, it is clear that the defendant had not claimed any 3 hostile title to the suit property so as to say that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1986 was barred by limitation. Merely because the defendant was in possession of the land for a long time would not be enough to dismiss a suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of limitation unless it is proved by the defendant that she claimed a hostile title to the property and still the plaintiff did not initiate any action within a period of twelve years. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE