: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.417 OF 2009 Ramrao Shankar Kadam & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Ramchandra Laxman Phalke ... Respondent Mr.Dilip Bodake for Appellants Mr.Prashant Bhavake for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 7, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and an injunction against the appellants. That suit has been decreed. The order has been confirmed by the appellate Court. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants contended that the suit had not been filed within limitation since a suit for possession must be filed within six months of the plaintiff being dispossessed. He refers to section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. In my view, this submission is unsustainable and without merit. The suit has not been filed u/s 6 of the Specific relief Act. It is a suit based on title, seeking : 2 : possession of the premises. Article 64 of the Limitation Act would therefore be applicable. The contention of the appellant that he was in adverse possession also has not been accepted by the trial Court. This plea was given up before the appellate Court. Therefore in my view, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted as no substantial questions of law are raised in it. 4. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of this, civil application No.1537 of 2009 does not survive and the same is dismissed accordingly.