The main legal point established is that the plaintiff proved ownership to a specific extent of the land and that the suit was within the limitation period, leading to the partial decree in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22/7/2006 passed in R.A.No.132/2004 by the Civil Jude (Sr.Dn) *Shorapur, Sitting at Shahapur, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2000, passed in O.S.No.132/1998 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Shahapur.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of land measuring 12 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.577/5 of Sagar Village, Tq. Shahapur and also sought for permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession over the land in any manner and for rectification of revenue records of suit land in the name of plaintiff by deleting the names of defendants. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of land in Sy.No.577/5 measuring 12 acres 8 guntas and the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The defendants are no way concerned to the suit land in any manner at any point of time. But the plaintiff had given the suit land to the defendants for half share crop basis for cultivating the suit land for 15 years. It is contended that plaintiff's ancestor were the absolute owner and in lawful possession of suit land. Now the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property. The defendants No.1 and 2 entered their names in the record of rights, without the knowledge and notice of the plaintiff and entries of record of rights are having no value in the eyes of law and there is no valid transfer of title. Defendants colluded with the revenue authorities, mutated the suit land without any legal basis. The defendants on the basis of wrong entries in the ROR extracts, are trying to interfere with the possession of the suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and injunction.

3.1. Defendants filed written statement contending that they are concerned only to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas of suit land towards eastern side of the suit property and further contended that the property was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's family. It is contended that since the time of their father, plaintiff was the owner and thereafter defendants are the owners and possessors of 6 acres 6 guntas of land on account of purchase made by the father of defendants few years prior to the year 1962. The mutation extract of the year 1962 is evident of this aspect. Further since 1962, in the ROR, either the name of father of defendants nor the name of defendants is appearing. It is alleged that defendants were cultivating the suit property for a period of 15 years to the date of plaint on half share crop basis, which has been clearly mentioned by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff could have mentioned in which year he took the possession of the land. It is contended that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas and name of the defendants are entered in the revenue records by valid mutation and it is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues and additional issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful owner of the land R.S.No.577/5 to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas?

2. Whether he further proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit land to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas from the time of his ancestors?

3. Whether the defendants prove that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than statutory period a