-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.341 OF 2001 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2375 OF 1999 In SUIT NO.4533 OF 1999 Vasu Ponkara Shetty : Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. Union of India & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Defendants) ... Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar for the appellant. None present for the defendants. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : MARCH 23, 2009. P.C. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 29.3.2001 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant. 2. The appellant sued, inter alia, for a declaration that he has become owner of the property by adverse possession in the suit filed in the year 1999. The appellant claims -: 2 :- to have derived possession from one Mahabal Shetty who in turn is said to have derived it from Janak Construction Company which is said to have executed a deed of assignment in favour of Mahabal Shetty. On that basis the appellant claims to have perfected his title by adverse possession to claim possession which contention is rejected by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has observed that the appellant has made his claim on the basis of a deed of assignment at exh.‘A’ where there is a recital that the assignor has obtained the requisite permission from the concerned authorities. On the basis of this recital, the learned single Judge has drawn an inference that there appears to be no substance in the case that the appellant is entitled to claim by adverse possession. 3. Mr.Prabhavalkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the permission referred to in the assignment deed do not necessarily mean permissive occupation of the appellant to occupy the premises, but it may be in relation to user. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. In any case, we have examined the document and the pleadings ourselves and we find that throughout in the plaint, there is no allegation that the assignor i.e. Janak Construction Company held the property adversely to the true owner i.e. -: 3 :- Union of India. The character in which the appellant holds the property cannot be different. 4. In these circumstances, we find no error in the observations of the learned single Judge that on a prima facie consideration, the plaintiff does not appear to have become owner of the property and is, therefore, entitled to adverse possession. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Hearing of the suit is expedited. S.A. BOBDE, J. A.A. SAYED, J.