1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 330/2005 (Ramkrushna Sonaji Bhagat VERSUS Mukinda Januji Bhagat) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Wathore, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant was his uncle and in the year 1956, the plaintiff and the defendant had purchased the suit field jointly. Accordingly to the plaintiff, both of them jointly cultivated the same till the year 1968 and in the year 1968, the suit field was partitioned between defendant and the plaintiff. Since the defendant started obstructing the plaintiff from cultivating his portion of the field, the plaintiff left the village in the year 1974 and went to Tornala. According to him, he cultivated the field till the year 1984 from Tornala. But, thereafter, the defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from his half share. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that he had jointly purchased 2 the field in his and the plaintiff's name, but, the entire consideration was paid by the defendant only. The defendant pleaded that the suit field was partitioned in the year 1960 but, the defendant himself was cultivating both the portions of the suit field. Since the plaintiff was about to dispose of his share in the suit field to some third party, the defendant paid the plaintiff an amount of Rs.3,000/- and got an agreement of sale executed in his favour. The plaintiff thereafter left the village and started living in Tornala since the year 1974. According to the defendant, there was a complete ouster of the plaintiff' in any case after the year 1984 even to the knowledge of the plaintiff and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It was the case of the defendant that he acquired title to the property also by adverse possession. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his half share in the suit field. The trial Court, however, held that the defendant had succeeded in proving his ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. In an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment passed by the trial Court, the negative finding on the question of ownership of the plaintiff was confirmed. The first appellate Court however 3 reversed the finding pertaining to the ownership of the defendant by adverse possession. Both the Courts held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act. Both the Courts, while deciding the issue of ownership as well as the question of limitation, considered the pleadings of the plaintiff as also his oral evidence, wherein, he had admitted that he had been dispossessed in the year 1984 and since the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2000, the Courts held that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it was hopelessly barred by limitation. A perusal of both the judgments clearly show that the findings recorded by the Courts on the issue of ownership of the plaintiff and the suit being barred by limitation, are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The findings are also not perverse. In this view of the matter, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE