1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 641 OF 2010 Jagannath S/o Baliram Kadam & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bhimrao S/o Rangrao Kadam & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri B.R. Sable, Advocate for the appellants Shri A.D. Wange, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : The present appellant is the original defendants. The present respondents filed a suit for possession on the basis of title. The plaintiffs contended that their father had handed over the suit land to the respondents for cultivation and their possession was permissive. In the year 1986 the plaintiffs asked for 2 restoration of possession. However, defendant denied the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. 2. Shri Sable, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit of the plaintiff for possession is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has no where shown that the possession of the defendants was permissive. They had raised the theory of being a tenant. Shri Sable, also further contended that the possession of the defendants is continuous since 1986, as such, the defendants are owners by adverse possession. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgments passed by both the Courts. When once the defendant had taken a plea that he was inducted as a tenant in such circumstances, the plea of adverse possession would be a mutually destructive plea. Both the Courts have 3 held that defendants could not prove the alleged tenancy. The ingredients required for tenancy were not proved. Even the defendant had not stated as to from which date the possession has become adverse. As according to the defendants their induction was as a tenant, in such circumstances, just because possession of the defendants was since 1986 it would not ipso-facto become adverse. The suit is based on title for which the limitation under Article 64 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable and as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, there would no limitation for filing suit based on title unless the defndant pleads and proves the adverse possession. 4. In the light of the above, no error can be found in the Judgments delivered by both the Courts below, and no substantial question of law is involved in the present Second Appeal, as such, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the Second 4 Appeal, Civil Application No. 13346 of 2010 does not survive, and same is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*641.10 SA