The present respondent No.1I0ri. Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1972 against the present appellant and the respondent No.2 for possession of land bearing Survey No.261 at Village Dhanora. The possession was sought from the defendant No.1 i.e. the present appellant by the plaintiff on the basis of title. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff i.e. present respondent No.1, directing the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 to hand over the possession of the suit field to the plaintiff. and also pay damages of Rs.1.500/- One of the legal representative of original defendant No.1 Khandu preferred Regular Civil Appeal bearing No.229 of 1990 before the District Court. Nandurbar. The Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nandurbar dismissed the said appeal. It also allowed the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff regarding separate inquiry for future mesne profit. The said legal representative of defendant No.1 Khandu preferred the present Second Appeal against the aforesaid Judgments.

2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on following substantial question of law;-

"A] Whether the District Court committed error in not appreciating the question of limitation in proper perspective and holding that the suit is not barred by limitation ?"

3. Shri. A. S. Abhyankar. learned Counsel for the appellant with all his persuasive skills canvassed following propositions ;

i] The suit would be governed by Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and as per Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, the Courts were duty bound to address on the said aspect of limitation. For the said purpose he relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Rajender Singh & others Vs. Santa Singh and others. reported in 1974 Mh.L.J. 1".

ii] The plaintiff had revoked the authority of the defendant No.2 in the year 1959 and still the defendant No.2 continued in possession. The defendant No.1 was inducted in possession by the defendant No.2 and the possession of defendant No.2 shall be tagged/tacked with the possession of the defendant No.1, and the suit fi led in the year 1972. is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel relied on the Judgment in a case of "Gurubinder Singh and another Vs. Lal Singh and another, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1553".

iii] Even if the suit is shown to have been based on title, still if it is 'shown that the plaintiff was dispossessed prior to 12 years of the filing of the suit, then still Article 64 can be invoked, and for the said purpose, the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Ramaiah Vs. N.Narayana Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4261", an unreported Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Appeal No.740 of 1971 decided on 23rd November, 1977. and the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Nair Service Society Ltd. V s. K. C. Alexander and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1165".

iv] The defendant No.2 was acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. at least since 1958 which can be seen from the Judgment of the Revenue Tribunal in the proceedings between one Dawaji and defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property, wherein Dawaji had claimed that he was inducted by the present defendant No.2. The said Judgment would be relevant and would be admissible, even though plaintiff was not party in the said proceedings, for the said purpose, learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K. M. Krishnaiah, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1132".

v] Though the amendment application was rejected by the lower appellate court. introducing plea of limitation. The same was challenged by filing writ petition which was withdrawn, but the High Court in the said order had allowed the present appellant to agitate the point of limitation in arguments and the same is required to be considered in Second Appeal.

vi] The plaintiff glossed over the earlier proceedings. The issue of tenancy was refer