: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.234 OF 2009 Narayan Babu Waghmare & Ors. ..Appellants V/s. Smt. Krishnabai Damodar Patil & Ors. ..Respondents ..... Mr. M.A. Choudhary i/by Prakash K. Deshmukh for the appellants None for the respondents ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 1st JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. One Mr. Narayan B. Waghmare instituted suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Uran being Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2002 against the respondents. In the said suit the appellant claimed that he is in possession of the suit property on the basis of long standing possession. The appellant claimed that he should be declared as owner of the said property and that the defendants therein who are the respondents before this Court, cannot interfere with his possession. It is seen that the said suit : 2 : came to be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Uran by his judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2006. He declined to accept the claim of the said Narayan Waghmare as regards the ownership. However, accepting the claim of said Narayan Waghmare as regards possession he passed an order thereby restraining defendants i.e. respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the said Narayan Waghmare save and except by following due process of law. It is seen that by the time the appeal was carried to the District Court, said Narayan expired and therefore in the District Court heirs of Narayan instituted Regular Civil Appeal. These heirs instituted the civil appeal are also appellants before this Court. The civil Appeal No.219 of 2006 came to be decided by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag vide his judgment and decree dated 13th January, 2009. The learned District Judge accepted the stand of the appellants as regards the factual aspects of possession. However, he declined to accept the stand of the appellants as regards ownership and that is how he thought it fit to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Uran. : 3 : Against the judgment and decree dated 13th January, 2006, this second appeal is filed. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Choudhary in support of the appeal. According to learned advocate Mr. Choudhary the long standing possession of the original plaintiff Narayan Waghmare ought to have been accepted by the Courts as ownership and claim of said Narayan ought to have been accepted. The present appellants have no grievance as regards of the order of injunction. 3. In the course of arguments, I have enquired with learned advocate Mr. Choudhary as regards the nature of claim put up by said Narayan Waghmare. Mr. Choudhary submitted that Mr. Narayan claimed ownership by adverse possession. It is seen that Narayan Waghmare approached the trial Court with an averment that because he was in possession of the property, he be declared as the owner of the property. Mere possession in respect of the property for a substantially long time cannot confer ownership rights on a person who claims to be in possession. It was absolutely necessary for said Narayan Waghmare to : 4 : prove the normal ingredients of adverse possession. That was not done. If this is the position, both the Courts were right in coming to the conclusion that said Narayan Waghmare had failed to prove his ownership. 4. Hence, argument advanced by learned advocate Mr. Choudhary before this Court that both the Court erred on the question of ownership cannot be accepted. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgments. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Civil Application No.842 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs in view of the disposal of the Second Appeal. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)