1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2007 Rehmankhan s/o Shahbuddinkhan Pathan died through his L.rs. ..APPELLANTS (orig. plaintiff) V E R S U S Maimunabanu w/o Hammidali Khan Kayamkhane and other. ..RESPONDENTS. (orig. defendants.) Shri Amit Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Original plaintiff has presented this appeal raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2. The plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants. According to him, he is in possession of the suit property since last more than 55 years and his possession is uninterrupted and hostile to the true owner. He has perfected his title. The defendants are obstructing his possession. As such he seeks prohibitory restraining order against the defendants. 3. The defendants appeared and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff by filing written statement. According to defendants, the so called possession claimed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be adverse and they are in permissive possession over the suit property. 4. The trial court after recording the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish perfection of his title in relation to property by virtue of long standing uninterrupted and hostile possession to the knowledge of the true 2 owner. The appeal presented by the original plaintiff being RCA No. 115/2001 also came to be dismissed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Latur on 23.04.2004. 5. I have perused both the judgments of the courts below. The plaintiff claim that he is in possession of suit property since 55 years prior to presentation of plaint. He has also pleaded in the plaint itself that some 40 years back the original owner of the property has alienated the suit property by executing the sale deed in favour of one Hamid Alikhan and the said Hamid Ali , deceased husband of defendant no.1 had purchased the said property. It has also not been pleaded in the plaint itself that there was suit lodged by the purchaser. The defendant no.1 Taufiaque AslamKhan presented suit in which consent decree was passed. It thus appears from the pleadings itself that the original owner had asserted his title in relation to the suit property and has entered in the transaction with one Hamid Ali some 40 years prior. Mere continuous possession of the plaintiff over the suit property for a long period for about 55 years in the instant case, itself will not entitle the plaintiff to claim adverse possession and perfection of title by virtue of his long standing possession. He has to further demonstrate as to when his possession turned hostile to the true owner and since when he started asserting his title. Thus in the nutshell, the plaintiff has to plead and prove starting point of limitation for claiming perfection of his title by virtue of adverse possession. In the instant matter, the plaintiff has not pleaded since when the possession of the plaintiff became adverse to the true owner and since when the plaintiff started asserting title in himself. In the absence of such evidence, plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim perfection of title in himself by virtue of adverse possession. No substantial question of law arises in the instant matter. Appeal therefore, stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application/s does not survive and hence disposed off. ( R.M.BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/184.07