1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.581 OF 2008. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.582 OF 2008. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.S.Renge, advocate holding for Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1/1, 1/3, 2/1 to 2/4 and 3. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.11.2010. 1. These are defendants' Second Appeals. The present Respondent Nos.1 to 3/original plaintiffs had filed suit for possession of the suit property and for recovery of mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants preferred appeals. The appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, dismissed the appeals. The defendants have assailed the said judgments and decrees in the present Second Appeals. 2. Mr.Bhavthankar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the defendant No.1 was adopted son of Sujanbai, who died in 1955 and pursuant thereto, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit properties as he was the only male heir. Once it is held that the defendant No.1 was adopted son, he had every right to sell the property to the defendant No.2. The learned counsel further contends that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as the defendants are in continuous, uninterrupted and in peaceful possession of the suit property since 1955. The Courts below have erred in not considering these aspects. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The appellant/original defendant No.2 would be entitled to protect his possession only on two counts. One, if he proves that defendant No.1 was the adopted son of Sujanbai or he alternatively proves that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Earlier there was litigation, wherein the defendant No.1 was also a party bearing RCS No.138/1977. In the said suit, the Court had arrived at a specific finding that the defendant No.1 could not prove that he is adopted son of Sujanbai and even his claim of adverse possession was negatived. Injunction was granted to the limited extent that he should not be dispossessed without due process of law. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit in the year 1984. As such when in a suit RCS No.138/1977 the finding is arrived at by the competent Court that the defendant No.1 is not the adopted son of Sujanbai and he has not perfected his title by adverse possession, the said finding being by a competent Court would operate as resjudicata. 4. In light of the above, the plaintiffs are the owners of the property being the heirs of Sujanbai. The Second Appeals being devoid of any substantial question of law, are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.11.2010. asp/office/sa581.08