:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.497 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.497 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.497 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1202 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1202 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1202 OF 2008 Shri Hanumant Tukaram Bhingardive ...Appellant. v. Shri Dilip Vinayak Dafale & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Umesh Mankapure , adv. for the Appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 27th August, 2008. DATE: 27th August, 2008. DATE: 27th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Mankapure the learned counsel for the appellant, who is the original defendant. 2. To state in brief, father of the defendant was allegedly inducted as tenant in the suit property sometimes in 1952. According to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the property, father of the defendant had surrendered the tenancy in 1956 and it was so recorded. In 1984, the defendant tried to get his name recorded in the occupation column of the suit property and he had also filed caveat in civil Court, therefore, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 1985 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in their possession. The suit was contested by the defendant, who contended that he was already in possession. In view of this, the :2: plaintiffs made an amendment and made an alternative prayer for possession. The defendant took two pleas. Firstly, that tenancy was not surrendered in 1956 and the record about the surrender was falsely prepared. Secondly, it was contended that the suit was barred by the limitation and the defendant had become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. After hearing the parties, the contentions of the defendant came to be rejected. The suit was decreed. The defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.131 of 1997 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, he has preferred the second appeal before this Court. 3. The defendant had taken two fold defence. Firstly his father had not surrendered the tenancy in 1956 and a false and fraudulent record was prepared and secondly, his possession was adverse to the title of the plaintiffs. The learned Appellate Court noted that the defendant had challenged the order passed by the Avval Karkun (Tenancy) about the surrender of the trial Court but the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. He had approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There also he failed. He filed the Writ Petition No.2927 of 1995. That writ petition also came to be dismissed by the High Court on 1-8-1995. From this it appears that till the dismissal of that writ petition, the defendant :3: was trying to take a plea that he was tenant over the suit property and the record about the surrender of the tenancy was wrong or fraudulent. It means till 1-8-1995 defendant was claiming to be tenant over the suit property and if it is so, his possession could not be adverse to the title of the landlord. He had failed in establishing that he continued to be tenant and in view of plea of the tenancy, he could not succeed on the plea of the adverse possession. Both the Courts below held that the suit is within the limitation. 4. In view of the above circumstances, I find no fault in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 5. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.1202 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)