1. This second appeal was admitted on 17th July, 2007 on substantial questions of law regarding maintainability of the suit in view of S. 144(2) CPC, when the application filed under S. 144(1) CPC was dismissed in default. After hearing the parties, I have framed additional substantial question of law under S. 100 (5) CPC on 6th September, 2018 with regard to limitation and adverse possession.

2. The brief factual aspects, essential to properly understand and decide the controversy leading to the issues involved, are as under:

3. The appellants herein are original defendants whereas the respondents are original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the trial court.

4. The Respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge, (S.D.), Gadhinglaj. The pleadings disclose that the subject matter of the suit was a house at Survey No. 123, Block No. 276 along 3.with surrounding land at village Atyal, taluka Gadhinglaj. The plaintiffs had earlier filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1961 against Ganpati Govilkar and against the husband of defendant No. 1 for partition and separate possession. The said suit was decreed holding that the plaintiffs herein were owners of half share in the land Survey No. 123 and a decree for possession of half land was passed in favour of the plaintiffs (actually Ganpati Govilkar had filed suit against the plaintiffs and four others wherein plaintiffs were held to be having half share). Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 therein were encroachers and having no interest therein. Arjun Mane, common ancestor of the present defendants was defendant No. 5 therein. The judgment and decree directed for removal of the structures of encroachers, including that of Arjun Mane. The plaintiffs herein filed Regular Darkhast No. 7 of 1978 for vacant possession of their half part of the land. It is their contention that at the time of execution, Arjun Mane compromised with them and accepted Rs. 625/for the structures thereon and gave vacant possession of land with structure. Thus, under the court decree, the plaintiffs have obtained possession in 1979 as owners thereof.

4.1. Arjun Mane thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2018 against the plaintiff claiming that he was in possession of the suit land and the structure thereon, and claimed perpetual injunction. On 16th June, 1983 ex-parte temporary injunction was granted in his favour. Taking undue advantage of the same, he took forcible possession of the suit structure and in view of injunction order, the plaintiffs could do nothing. Later, the said temporary injunction application came to be rejected and the miscellaneous appeal there from was also rejected. Later on, the suit for perpetual injunction also came to be rejected on 23.9.1987.

4.2 The plaintiffs herein then filed Civil Application No. 13 of 1988, purportedly under S. 144(1) C.P.C. The said application came to be rejected in default on 14.2.1998. The plaintiff claimed that his right of possession and limitation were protected while rejecting the application (but no such order is found).

4.3 Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs herein had received possession of the land in 1979 through court. Those are supported by documentary evidence in the form of certified copies of court orders Exhibits 57, 58, 73, 75 and Exhibits 80, 81, 82. I don't find any material infirmity in the said finding. The said finding needs no interference.

4.4 Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 14.7.1998 for possession on the basis of title and for mesne profits of Rs. 3,600/for three years. The rejection of Misc. Application No. 13 of 1988 on 14.2.1998 is shown as cause of action.

5. Meanwhile Arjun Mane expired and was represented by legal heirs the present defendants, who are appellants herein. They