This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court thereby dismissing the Short Cause Suit No. 1357 of 1979. The original plaintiff no. 1 Shivram Mahadev Shinde claiming adverse possession against the Government, filed a suit for possession and injunction in respect of land admeasuring 25 acres and 12.34 gunthas bearing Survey no. 29 (Part), 30-C, 30-D, 41/1 (Part), 41/2, 41/3 and 41/4 (Part), 41-B/1, 42-B/2 and Plot Nos. 1 to 11-12 (Part) of private scheme No. “A” at Village Pahadi, Goregaon Taluka, Borivali, Mumbai.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff no. 1/Shivram Shinde that he was in possession of the suit land since 1944. He has entered into an agreement with one Jagan Babu Thakur on 15th June, 1949 for cultivating the land for two years, i.e., from 15th June, 1949 to 14th June, 1951 (Exhibit 6). On 9th April, 1970 Tahsildar of Village Pahadi issued notice that in the year 1956 that the original plaintiff had encroached upon the land and cultivated para grass. It is his case that panchnama was conducted by Talati, which shows that the land was in possession of the plaintiff/appellant, so he paid the penalty for that and continued to do so. He entered into Sale Deed with plaintiff no. 2 in the year 1955 of the suit land. It is also a case of the plaintiff no. 1 that he had lodged written complaint to P.S.I. on 5th January, 1979 against MHADA board and Tahsildar. On 26th August, 1979 the appellant entered into an agreement with one Devraj Gundecha/plaintiff no. 2 and sold the said land by registered agreement of sale. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant claimed that he is in possession of the suit land without any interruption since last more than 30 years and claimed declaration of title by way of adverse possession and also injunction against the defendants. The written statement was not filed by the State, but it was filed by MHADA/defendant no. 1 who denied that the plaintiff no. 1 was in possession of the land. All the averments made and contentions raised by the plaintiff are denied by the defendants in the written statement. It is contended that the State of Maharashtra is the owner of the land and has acquired this land for MHADA for the purpose of constructing houses for public. He submitted that the award was passed of the said land and name of Government of Maharashtra and MHADA were entered in the record of rights of the said land. It was further specifically denied that appellant is having a hostile and open possession since last 30 years, however, the Government has sent a notice in the year 1970 demanding penalty for unauthorized occupation by the plaintiff. The fact of possession of the entire land for 30 years is also denied. It is further contended that the plaintiff is not cultivating para grass on the entire land and the suit be dismissed.

3. After considering the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, the trial Court framed issues and gave findings as follows:

S. No. Issues Findings

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. This Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit lands are in their possession openly, continuously and adversely for 12 or more years ? Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit lands are in their possession openly, adversely for 12 or more years.

3. Whether the order of the Tahsildar, Borivali, dated 11.4.1979 in Case No. RTS/WS/183 is not binding on the plaintiffs? Not proved, Plaintiffs should have adopted proper course.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim Rs.5000/- together with interest @ Rs.6% p.a. as damages from the defendants. Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim Rs.1080/- as loss of income or profit for the period from January 1979 till the date of the suit together with interest @ 6% p.a. of the amount? Against plaintiff

6. Whether the plainti