The judgment establishes the legal principles related to adverse possession, consent of the owner, and the applicability of the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) PRESENT Second Appeal is preferred by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 against the judgment and decree dated 19-12-2003 passed by the District Judge-1, amalner in R. C. A. No. 20/2003 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22-7-2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda in R. C. S. No. 73/2001. The appellants are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 is the original defendant No. 8 against whom the present Second Appeal has abated as per order dated 26-6-2009. (Hereinafter parties are referred as they appear in the trial Court ).

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed R. C. S. No. 73/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, J. D. Chopda for possession of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 172 at village Pimpri, taluka Chopda District Jalgaon. The plaintiff's contention is that the suit land gat No. 172 admeasuring 36 Ares was in the joint cultivation of mother of plaintiff and the defendants. However, after the death of the plaintiff's mother, the defendants occupied the entire suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff repeatedly requested the. defendants to hand over his share in the suit land. In spite of repeated requests, the defendants failed and neglected to do so and therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to hand over his share in the suit land Gat No. 172. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed present suit for possession of 50% share from Gat No. 172.

( 4 ) THE defendants appeared in the said suit and filed their Written statement dated 12-2-2002 and denied the plaintiff's claim for possession of 50% share in the suit property. The defendants contended that they were in possession of the suit property for last several years. Not only that, they are cultivating the suit land. It is their case that Tejabai Kisan Patil executed release deed in the year 1975 in favour of Shenfadu Krishna Patil and since then they are in possession of the suit property. Defendants' further contended that on the basis of release deed, appropriate entries and changes were made in the revenue record. It is submitted that on the basis of release deed, revenue authorities issued extract of Village form No. 6 showing that Tejabai Kisan Patil released her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property in their favour. Copy of the extract of Village Form no. 6 produced by the defendants on record at Exhibit 35 and 38. On the basis of these two documents, the defendants contended that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property for last several years and therefore, they acquired title by adverse possession. It is the case of the defendants in their W. S. dated 12-2-2002 that with the consent of Tejabai Kisan Patil, they are cultivating the suit property. Even after the death of Tejabai, in the year 1993, after the death of shenfadu Patil in the year 1991, the defendants are in possession and cultivation of the suit property with the consent of the heirs of Smt. Tejabai. On the basis of these facts, the defendants contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the basis of these submissions of both the Counsel, the trial Court framed the following issues.

ISSUES

FINDINGS

(1)

What is nature of suit land?

18 R land in gat No. 172 was sole property of Tejabai , mother of the plaintiff.

(2)

Whether defendants prove their possession over suit land?

. . Affirmative

(3)

Whether suit land is open for partition?

. . Negative

(4)

Whether plaintiff has share in the suit land; if yes to what extent?

. . Negative

(5)

Is plaintiff entitled for partition and separate possession with mesne profit?

. . Negative

(6)

What order and decree?

As per final order.

( 6 ) THE trial Court held that the defendants proved their adverse possession over the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in r. C. S. No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document