-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.770 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.770 OF 2003 Smt.Krishnabai Ramchandra Gaikwad ...Appellants and another vs. Balu Bapu Dhodade ...Respondent Mr.M.V.Limaye for the Appellants Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for Respondent No.1-2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal is by the original defendant in a suit filed by the Respondent for declaration of ownership and for injunction. In the written statement, the Appellants denied the title of the Respondent. However, a plea of adverse possession was also raised. The trial court accepted the case of the Respondent-plaintiff and declared the Respondent to be the owner. Perusal of the points for determination framed by the Appellate Court in the Appeal preferred by the Appellants show that the plea of adverse possession was pressed into service and that is the reason why the Appellate court was right in not framing a point for determination on the title of the Respondent. 2. The submission of the Advocate for the Appellants is that the original defendant was collecting rent from the tenants in the property for number of years and in fact he had filed -2- suits against the tenants and his status as a landlord has been established and accepted by the court. He submitted that the Respondent has not established his title. 3. I have considered the submissions. The finding of the Appellate Court is that the evidence on record shows that the predecessor of the Appellant late Ramchandra (original defendant) was collecting rent for about 5 to 6 years. The first Appellant who stepped into witness box stated that she had no personal knowledge as to when the deceased Ramchandra came in possession of the property. The Appellate Court has held that there is no satisfactory evidence of assertion of hostile title by the deceased Ramchandra. There is a finding of fact recorded that the plea of adverse possession has not been established by the Appellants. 4. It is crystal clear from the Judgment of the Appellate Court that the Appellants pressed into service the plea of adverse possession against the Respondent. It is, therefore, obvious that the Appellant Court has not framed any point for determination on the issue of ownership in as much as the admission of the title of the Respondent was implicit in the plea of adverse possession. 5. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE