1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 699 OF 2008 Shri Bhiva Bapu Gurav ... Appellant v/s Shri Sadashiv Narayan Patil ... Respondent Mr.Rahul Kulkarni for the appellant. Mr.R.P.Walvekar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 8TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Kolhapur dated 1.10.2007. By this judgment, the Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court and has decreed the suit. The defendant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.69,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree. Future interest at the rate of 6% was also directed to be paid. 2 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the suit is barred by limitation and, therefore, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that both agreements dated 5.8.1993 and 25.6.1994 respectively were hit by Article 24 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that in any event there was a ban under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 on account of which the agreement dated 5.8.1993 was void. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hansraj Gupta & ors. v/s Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 1933 Privy Council 63. 3. In my opinion, the appellate Court has considered all these aspects of the matter in the proper perspective and in accordance with law and has given cogent reasons for not accepting the findings of the Trial Court. 4. No substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal. 5. The second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application along with the civil application. ..... 3