IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.269/2010 Anandabai Eknath Kukde ..vs.. Wasudeo Pandu Dudhabale Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 18th June, 2010. Heard Shri Sambre, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the appellant and his two brothers – defendant no.2 & 3. The appellant – defendant no.1 is the sister of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 & 3. In the year 1976, there was a partition between the three brothers and the plaintiff received 0.66 H.R. of land in the said partition. There was some loan on the suit land. The plaintiff cultivated the same since 1976 to 1988. He then left the village for his livelihood in the year 1988 entrusting the suit land to his sister – defendant no.1 on the condition that she will cultivate it and discharge the debt on the same. According to the plaintiff the defendant no.1 promised to re-deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiff after he returned to the village. In 1998 the plaintiff returned to the village, but he became aware that the defendant no.1 had not discharged the debt and since he wanted to cultivate the land he sought possession from the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 filed a suit bearing R.C.S. no.92/1998 for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in this case from disturbing the possession of the defendant. The declaratory relief was not granted, but the courts held that the present plaintiff should not disturb the possession of the defendant no.1, otherwise than by due course of law. After the decree was passed in the said suit, the plaintiff filed a suit for delivery of possession and mesne profits. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendant no.1 was possessing the suit property from 1988 and since more than 12 years had lapsed the defendant no.1 had perfected her title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendant no.1 sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the defendant no.1 had not perfected her title to the same by adverse possession. The courts recorded the aforesaid findings by appreciating the relevant oral and documentary evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP