SA 716/04 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.716/2004 Abdul Kadar s/o Abdul Nabi and others. ...Appellants.. (Org.plaintiffs) Versus Javedbin Bubekar & others. ...Respondents... (Org.defendants) ..... Shri P.P. Chavan, Advocate for appellants. ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 09.12.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] This is plaintiffs’ second appeal. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for possession on the basis of title. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal. SA 716/04 - 2 - The plaintiffs have assailed the said judgments and decrees in the present second appeal. 3] Shri P.P. Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. As the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property, they have every right to file a suit for possession. There can not be any limitation to file a suit based on title. According to the learned counsel, the defendants have not satisfied the ingredients for adverse possession. The learned counsel submits that the right to property, being a statutory and Constitutional right, the same can not be negatived in such a manner. 4] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. It is a matter of record that earlier in the year 1968, the predecessor of the present plaintiffs had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and for possession, which came to be dismissed. The appeal challenging the said judgment and decree was also dismissed. After a long slumber, in the year 1982, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for possession. In the earlier suit also, the present defendant no.1 had claimed to be the owner of the property. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs are the owners, still at least from the date of the earlier suit, the possession of the defendant no.1 was hostile to the title of the plaintiffs and their predecessor. Both the Courts, on evaluation of the evidence and also taking into consideration the decree passed in SA 716/04 - 3 - earlier suit, have concurrently come to the conclusion that the defendant no.1 has perfected the title by way of adverse possession, and even the principle of res judicata would apply. 5] In the result, the second appeal, being sans any substantial question of law, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ndk/c912101