-: 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 JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1416 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO.1416 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO.1416 OF 2004 Dattatraya Padmakar Mhatre ...Appellant V/s. Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Shri Gondekar . Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors....Respondents Mr.S.V. Palsuledesai, Advocate, for the Appellant. . Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel, with Ms.Gauri Godse, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Palsuledesai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel, alongwith Ms.Gauri Godse, for the respondent no.1. -: 2 :- 2. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. The suit was for declaration that the plans in respect of the construction on the space required to be kept open from the northern boundary of the suit property as well as construction on the suit property submitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and sanctioned by the then Dombivli Municipal Council are illegal and void. The appellant also claimed vacant possession of the land admeasuring about 60 square yards from the respondent no.1 after removing encroachment thereof. 3. The trial court as well as lower appellate court concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have encroached upon the suit property as shown in the plan attached with the plaint. Be that as it may, the respondent no.1-society purchased survey no.41-B, 63-A, hissa no.3(part) and survey no.41-B in the year 1974. The building permission was sought for in the year 1975 and construction of building was completed in the year 1980. The appellant purchased plot nos.23 and 24 i.e. survey no.63-A/3 by two sale deeds executed in the year 1987 and 1990. The present suit is filed in the -: 3 :- year 1989. If the above dates are taken into consideration then it is clear that the respondent no.1 was in possession of alleged encroachment area in the year 1975. The appellants filed suit for possession of the encroached land on the basis of prior possession of his vendor. Thus suit is covered under Article 64 of the Limitation Act and it ought to have been filed within a period of twelve years from the acrual of the cause of action. The building permission was granted to respondent no.1 in the year 1975 pre-supposes that they were in possession of the property shown in a plan in that area. Thus the suit filed in the year 1989 is beyond the statutory period of twelve years. 4. Mr.Palsuledesai relied upon a map at Exhibit-156 to contend that the encroachment is proved. Perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that it has considered the map at Exhibit-155 prepared by the PW-3. The court after going through the deposition of PW-3 disbelieved this witness for the several reasons stated in the impugned judgment and order. The appellant in order to prove map at Exhibit-156 has not examined any witness though this map is disputed by the respondent no.1. -: 4 :- Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 5. The lower courts below concurrently held that the encroachment is not proved. This finding of the fact is not liable to be interfered with while exercising my jurisdiction under section 100 of the C.P.C., especially when the appellant failed to show that this finding is perverse. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal and the Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [RANJIT V. MORE, J.]