ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.940 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.940 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.940 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 29th April, 2008 : 29th April, 2008 : 29th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Both the Courts after considering the material available on record and evidence on record held that the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to prove the sale deed dated 14th November, 1977 is bogus and illegal; he is in possession over the suit land and the suit is within the limitation and thereby refused to grant any relief. The alternate entitlement to the possession of the suit property, accordingly dismissed. ( 2 ) 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that with regard to the law of limitation only contention is that the document in question was executed by the father some time in the year 1975 and or 1976. However, he did not know about this document. Therefore, filed the present suit within a period of 3 years from the date of knowledge. 3. The property in question is admittedly the subject matter of the document as referred above. The same so executed at that time within a power and authority of his father. The same sale deed, therefore, cannot be the subject matter of the challenge by the son as done in the present case. The finding so given and arrived at considering the above aspect ( 3 ) of limitation, I find that no case is made out by the Appellants to interfere with the finding so arrived at, as the same is within the framework of law and record. 4. There is no perversity in the finding. The view as taken, based on the material available, therefore, even otherwise need no interference. 5. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. . No costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]