1 Second Appeal No.240/2011 2.12.2011 Shri Yashpal Rathor, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4. Shri S.D. Bohra, Advocate for the respondent No.5. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment & decree dated 17.1.2011, whereby the learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment & decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the respondents 1 to 4 was decreed by the trial Court on 15.5.2009. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Ex.D/1 and D/2 Panchnamas prepared by the revenue authorities in presence of the plaintiffs, the revenue authorities after demarcating of the area gave a report that defendants/appellants are in possession of the land for a period of more than 15 years, both the Courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit by holding that the plaintiffs were dispossessed in January, 2007, whereas the appellants were in possession for a period of 15 yeas prior to January, 2007 or from the date of filing of the suit. It is submitted that Balchand (DW1) Assistant Superintendent of Land Revenue record, Office of Collector, Jhabua demarcated the said area vide Ex.D/1c and D/1 in which the plaintiff appended his signatures and thus the suit was barred as the same was not filed within three years from the date of dispossession of plaintiffs respondents 1 to 4. It is trued that as per Ex.D/1 & D/2 it is stated that demarcation was done in presence of the plaintiff and during demarcation an area of Survey No.459 was demarcated in presence of the parties as well as other witnesses and on the basis of the 2 statements of the witnesses it is stated in the said Panchnama that appellants/ defendants 1, 2 & 3 are in possession of the suit land for a period of more than 15 years prior to the date of filing of the suit, but this question has been considered by the trial Court after taking into consideration the statement of DW1. DW1 in his statement has deposed that the area was demarcated on 10.4.07, but this witness in paragraph 11 of his cross examination has very categorically stated that except on the date of demarcation he has never visited the suit area nor there is any revenue record to prove that the respondents 1 to 4 were dispossessed prior to January, 2007 nor he has seen the possession of the appellants. In view of the statement given by DW1 the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were dispossessed somewhere in January, 2007 and the question of limitation was considered by the trial Court while deciding the issue No.5 and gave a finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 to 4 was in time. Considering these facts this Court is of the view that the Courts below have not committed any legal error in holding that the suit filed by the defendants-respondents 1 to 4 was within time i.e., within a period of 3 years from the date of their dispossession. No other argument was advanced on behalf of the appellants. In view of the concurrent finding of the two Courts below no substantial question of law arises. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly dismissed in limine. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*