1 S.A. 384/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent. ........................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for possession against the present defendant in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendant preferred Appeal. The appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.S. Kazi, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property as is required under law, still the plaintiff has better title and on the basis of better title, he is entitled for possession against the respondent, who admittedly 2 S.A. 384/2010 has no title. The learned counsel further contended that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the Suit and as such the question of applicability of Article 64 of the Limitation Act could also not apply. Mr. Kazi, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Prasad and others V/s Rajpal Singh and another - reported in ( 1995 ) 1 Supreme Court Cases – 311. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that plaintiff admittedly has no title to the suit property. The Government is the owner of the land. The plaintiff has not proved as to when he has been dispossessed. As per Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act, the plaintiff has to prove that his Suit is within 12 years from the date of dispossession. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 6. The plaintiff is claiming only on the basis that his name appears in the municipal record and on that basis claims title or better title. The same is not sufficient to bring the case of the plaintiff within the concept of better title. More over, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has not been in a position to prove the date of his dispossession. The Courts have not accepted the case of the plaintiff that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings. Even as 3 S.A. 384/2010 per the Judgment, in the case of Shyam Sunder referred supra, the Apex Court has held that it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to only prove his title, but he has also to prove that his Suit is within 12 years from the date of dispossession or from the date when he discontinued possession. 7. In light of the above, the Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such is dismissed , however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 384.2009