JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.

1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were before the Trial Court.

2. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 6th July 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shrigonda, in Reg. civil suit No. 23 of 2004, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff claiming a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing his possession over the same, which dismissal has been confirmed by the learned first Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 22nd March, 2011.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the area admeasuring 2 hectares out of Gat No. 327 situated at village Ruikhel Tal. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar, was received by his father in the year 1945-46 for cultivation under document styled as "Eksalina Karar", since which date his father and after him, the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the same. It is averred that initially, the land was 10 acres, however, in the year 1967 area of 5 acres was taken away for percolation tank. It is averred that the remaining land of 5 acres is in cultivating possession of the plaintiff, which he has developed, which is demonstrable by the entry in 7/12 extract, wherein the name of the plaintiff is recorded. It is further averred that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since last more than 50 years and because of his continuous possession, he has become the owner of the suit property. Since the defendants were trying to disturb his possession, a suit for declaration claiming that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property and perpetual injunction against the defendants from obstructing his possession over the same, was filed.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants, by filing of written statement by defendant No.3, whereby it was contended that the suit property was not given to the plaintiff's father permanently, but was only temporarily permitted to be used under the document styled as "Eksalina Karar". It was, thus, contended that the occupation of the plaintiff and before him that of his father, could at the most be said to be that of a person holding over and definitely not adverse. It was submitted that the land has been given to the Forest Department and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995, all unauthorized occupants in forest land needed to be removed.

5. The plaintiff examined himself and two more witnesses. The documentary evidence consists of 7/12 extracts from 1945-46 upto 2005 as well as tax receipts. The learned Trial Court upon a consideration of the evidence and the documents before him, found that the plea of the plaintiff, of having become owner by way of adverse possession of the suit land, was not established and, thus, dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court by its judgment dated 22/03/2011 has followed suit.

6. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel Mr.Kuldip S. Patil for the appellant/plaintiff, that both the judgments suffer from non-application of mind to the admitted position on record and overlooked the continuous possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, which is reflected from the documents on record, namely, the 7/12 extracts at Exh. 35 to 38, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that the Courts below have ignored the evidence on record and their reasoning is based upon a misreading of the evidence led before the Trial Court and, therefore, is perverse. He further submits that evidence as to his longstanding possession has been ignored and, thus, the judgments of the Courts below, call for interference at the hands of this Court. He, therefore, submits that a substantial question of law, as urged by him, arises for consideration and is needed to be framed and decided. He place