: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.986 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1199 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1541 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1621 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R. Shah for the Appellant. Mr.P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mr.N.S. Patel i/b M/s.Patel & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 2. The Appellant does not claim any independent right in the suit property which admeasures 5170 sq.mtrs. The Appellant’s case is that they acquired : 2 : certain rights from one S.R. Joganpally. Admittedly, the said Joganpally was also not the owner of the property. It is however, alleged that said Joganpally was in possession of the property for about 30 years. He transferred whatsoever rights he may have had in the property to the Appellant in 1995. Accordingly by this process of reasoning, the Appellants claim adverse possession. On the record as it stands, it is difficult to accept the case of adverse possession at all. 3. Further there is nothing on record which indicates the Appellants being in settled possession of the suit property. The documents now sought to be introduced in the Civil Application in this Court were admittedly not filed before the trial Court. 4. It is contended on the basis of photographs that there are two small tin sheds on this property. Mr.Singh fairly states that the protection is sought atleast in respect of these two tin sheds : 3 : which according to him, have been in possession of the Appellants since long. 5. It is pertinent to note that it is conceded that these tin sheds are allegedly in occupation of the labourers of the Appellants carrying on construction on the adjoining plot and not on the suit plot. The photographs by themselves do not indicate settled position by any stretch of imagination. There is nothing to show how or when the Appellants’ labourers came to be in possession thereof. Nor is there anything to show that it is the Appellants’ labourers who occupying the sheds. 6. What is even more important to note is that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of a part of the said plot have been contested for almost 30 years by the Respondent. The Respondent has even been paid compensation. 7. The available evidence establishes : 4 : the Respondents possession of the property. 8. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil Application is accordingly dismissed. Status-quo as existing shall continue for a period of four weeks from today.