1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.338/2010 SMT. SITABAI RAMCHANDRA GEDAM & ORS ..VS.. MANOHAR BHIMRAO GAJGHATE & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 9/8/2010 Heard Shri Murthi, the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of property admeasuring 17 ½ x 40 feet. The plaintiffs claimed possession on the basis of their title. According to the plaintiffs the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit property. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property. The defendants pleaded that they had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. The defendants pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that they were the owners of the suit property and that the possession of the defendants over the suit property was permissive . The courts held that the defendants had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. The courts held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by 2 limitation. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. It is necessary to note that in the year 1987 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs asking the defendants to vacate the suit premises and treating them as permissive occupiers of the premises. The defendants had replied to this notice on 17.8.1987 and had stated in the reply that the respondent was occupying the suit house as owner thereof and hence it would not be proper for the plaintiff to call him a licencee or a person in permissive possession of the suit property. The courts considered this reply dated 17.8.1987 along with the other evidence on record to hold that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2004 was clearly barred by limitation. All the findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 895 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as in the instant case there is ample pleading and proof of hostile title of the defendants over the suit property which was specifically within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.