( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 230 OF 1989 1. Yamunabai w/o Shankar Jagje .. Appellants Age. 45 years, Occ. Agri. & [Ori.plaintiffs] Household, R/o. Shivli, Tal. Ausa. 2. Hirabai w/o. Ambadas Chambarge, Age. 38 years, Occ. Agri. & Household, R/o. Shivli, Tal. Ausa. Versus 1. Aba Gulab, .. Respondents Age. 32 years, Occ. Agri., [Ori.defendants] 2. Gangadhar Gulab, Age. 25 years, Occ. Agri., 3. Babu Gulab, Age. 19 years, Occ. Agri., 4. Rahibai w/o. Gulab Age. 55 years, Occ. Agri., 5. Rukminibai w/o. Gulab, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri., All R/o. Shivli, Tal. Ausa. Shri M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the appellants. Shri C.R. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the respondents. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 25.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 1978 filed by them for possession of Survey No.120 on title, which suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa on 20th March, 1982. Said judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned District Judge, Latur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.58 of 1992 decided on 12th December, 1988. 2. Briefly stated it is case of the appellants who are sisters inter se that they were daughters of Vithoba. Vithoba was owner of survey No.120 situated at village Shivli, Tal. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Thereafter Vithoba died sometime in 1944-45 leaving behind his widow Tulsabai and two daughters (plaintiffs). Tulsabai remarried. Her share was devolved on plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were minors. At that time ( 3 ) defendant Gulab was inducted as tenant and he used to give crop share to the appellants. In the circumstances, the suit was filed for recovery of possession on title. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. They denied that Gulab was tenant of plaintiffs/appellants and was cultivating land in said capacity. It is stated that Gulab was owner of the property and he was cultivating the land as owner. It is further stated that previously the appellants filed suit bearing No. 31/1 of 1953-54, but the suit land was not included and now the present suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also stated that even assuming that Gulab was not owner, he had perfected title by adverse possession over 12 years prior to the filing of suit. 4. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the District Court. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- ( 4 ) (1) Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.? (2) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were right in holding that the respondents have perfected their title by adverse possession over 12 years prior to the filing of the suit? 5. The learned Advocate Shri M.L. Dharashive for the appellants and learned Advocate Shri Bharaswadkar have taken me through judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Perused evidence and the record. So far as adverse possession is concerned, it is observed by the Trial Court that there was no documentary evidence whatsoever to prove that Vithoba the father of the appellants/plaintiffs was ever owner of the suit property. Vithoba had died in about 1944-45. There is mere word of plaintiffs and their witness. The plaintiffs examined one witness Ramchandra Kulkarni, who was village Patwari in 1950. Ramchandra Kulkarni examined at Exh.58 stated that in pahani patrak of 1950, he had entered name of plaintiff Yamunabai as minor under guardianship of Gulab and Gena, as cultivator, as he was told by deceased Gulab that the ( 5 ) land was owned by Vithoba. However, this entry is doubtful in as much as same entry did not continue thereafter. Secondly name of appellant Yamunabai was entered as cultivator under guardianship of Gulab and Gena which is not case of either side. In cross- examination Ramchandra Kulkarni admitted that the land was cultivated by others and in such case name of appellant Yamunabai ought to have taken in the column of ownership. In column 14 cultivation was shown personally. Thus it is clear that the entry is not as per the actual knowledge of even Ramchandra Kulkarni who made the entry. It is case of the appellants that they were not cultivating the land, but they had given the land to Gulab to cultivate on crop share basis. If that was so, there was no occasion to say that the lands were personally cultivated by the owner. So such doubtful entry was rightly disbelieved. On the other hand all other revenue record from 1952-53 onwards, which included Pahani Patrak, Khasara Pahani Patrak, 7/12 extract, clearly indicated name of only respondent’s father Gulab as owner. So, there was thus no evidence to show that the property was owned by Vithoba and ( 6 ) inherited by the appellants. 6. So far as theory of land was given on lease to Gulab is concerned, it is stated that there is only evidence of witness Dhondiba and plaintif No.1- Yamunabai. Witness Dhondiba stated that after 4-5 years after police action in his presence Tulsabai mother of the appellants and appellant No.1 Yamunabai leased the property to Gulab but in cross-examination he gave two versions. He stated that Gulab was cultivating the land prior to police action and then he changed and stated that Gulab was cultivating since after police action. It is stated that the plaintiff’s mother is alive and she is not examined. In-fact, she would have been the best evidence. 7. Apart from all these in Regular Civil Suit No. 31/1/1953-54, which was filed by the present plaintiff, the defendant’s father Gulab had denied the title of Vithoba and appellants over all properties including present suit property. So that was clear denial of title and inspite of such denial in the suit, that was ( 7 ) decided on 16.06.1955, no suit was filed for possession on title within 12 years. Copy of judgment of said suit is at Exh.55. Relying on this, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that Gulab and after his death the respondents have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. The revenue record clearly indicates that Gulab was shown as owner of the property and he was personally cultivating the property. Entries in the name of Gulab and thereafter in the name of respondents are there from 1952-53 onwards continuously till filing of the suit. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that crop share was given by Gulab or respondents to the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed any error in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the suit property and even if they are held to be owners, respondents have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession over 12 years prior to filing of the suit. 8. So far as Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. is ( 8 ) concerned, all that we have got is judgment at Exh.55. That was suit for injunction simplicitor. Now the law is well settled that merely because there are several properties, suit for injunction need not be filed in respect of all, when there are no cause of action for some of them. So, I am not satisfied from documents on record that there is bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. If there is no obstruction to the possession of a particular property, the person concerned is not bound to file a suit for injunction. 9. In any case, since the appellants have not perfected their title to the suit property and since even assuming that such title is proved, respondents have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession over 12 years prior to filing of the suit. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa230.89a