( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11832 OF 2005 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8305 OF 2006 Balu Madhav Wani (Wairal) and Anr. .. Appellants Versus Bhanudas Madhav Shinde & Ors. .. Respondents Shri Y.V. Kakade h/f. Shri P.G. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants. Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Y.V. Kakade h/f. Adv. Shri P.G. Gunale for the appellants. Adv. Shri N.V. Gaware appears for respondent No.2. The appellants are original plaintiffs whose suit for possession on title bearing Regular Civil Suit No.283 of 1989 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat, on 31.08.2001, which judgment and ( 2 ) decree was further confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.439 of 2001, by III Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, on 12.07.2005. 2. Some of the facts which arise for my consideration are as follows:- . The appellants claimed that the suit property which is Block No.389 and which was earlier Survey No.169, situated at village Jalajpur, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar, was their ancestral property. By joining hands the father of defendant No.1 with Talathi, mutation No.295 was entered into name of father of defendant and taking advantage of the fact that father of the plaintiff No.1 was owner of the property and he was away from the village, father of defendant No.1 took possession of the property. Hence, this suit for possession on title. 3. The First Appellate Court held that the appellants failed to prove their title. It is held that the suit is not within limitation. There is only statement of P.W.1-Balu Wani at Exh.78 as oral evidence led by the appellant. There is no other evidence. Evidence in favour of respondent is of D.W.1 – Dilip Shinde examined at Exh.99 and the mutation in question. Evidence of P.W.1 Balu did indicate that Survey No.169 was converted into block No.138. Madhav Jyotiba was his grand-father. Madhav Rama happens to be predecessor in title of respondent, who purchased 7½ acres land from Tuka Vairal. It is not explained during evidence as to how said ( 3 ) Tuka and Madhav – son of Jyoti, who were predecessor of plaintiff No.1 were related. It is admitted that plaintiff's father went to Satara and in 1976-77 he came back and at that time he filed suit in respect of 162 and 173. There is no explanation why he did not file suit in respect of block No. 381, when it was property of the plaintiffs and they were entitled to possession. The plaintiffs also claimed that Southern portion of suit land is their land. Previously one suit was filed but it was withdrawn. In the evidence of D.W. 1 Dilip Shinde, he stated that in the year 1916 Madhav purchased Survey No.161 for consideration of Rs. 75/- to the extent of 7 acres 18 gunthas and Mutation Entry No.177 was passed, which is at Exh.102. Madhav Rama purchased remaining land for Rs. 99/- and mutation entry No.295 and 378 were sanctioned. So, it is case of defendants that they are in possession of the property on the basis of unregistered sale- deed and from the year 1916 to 1920 their possession has been shown continuously in revenue record. Since they were sale- deeds below Rs.100/- no registration was required and merely because unregistered sale-deeds are not produced by the defendants it is not enough to disbelieve the revenue record which was since the year 1920 and never challenged till filing of the suit. 4. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove their title. The defendants have proved their ownership by documentary evidence. The suit cannot be said to be within limitation. ( 4 ) In the circumstances, the appeal has no merit. The Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. 5. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 11832 of 2005 and Civil Application No. 8305 of 2006 do not survive. The Civil Applications stand disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa1690.05