IMPORTANT POINT
When a party is not claiming possession on the basis of title and suit is based on previous possession of plaintiff, Article 64 of Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable.

R.D. Dhanuka, J.—By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original defendants) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge - 14 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dismissing Civil Appeal No.489 of 2010 filed by the appellants thereby impugning the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the learned trial Judge, passing a decree in favour of the respondent (original plaintiff) inter-alia praying for possession of the suit premises i.e. Hutment bearing No.994, situated at Nagpur Chawl, Yerwada, Pune - 411006 in Regular Civil Suit No.1762 of 2007. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under :

2. The appellant no.1 is the son of the respondent. The appellant no.2 is the daughter in law of the respondent. The suit premises is situated in a protected slum area of the Government and is under the control of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The suit premises is not owned by the respondent, but vests in the Government or Pune Municipal Corporation.

3. It was the case of the respondent that he had permitted the appellants to occupy the suit premises along with him, due to love and affection for his son and daughter in law. The appellants however, dispossessed the respondent. The respondent accordingly filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.1762 of 2007 before the learned 8th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, inter-alia praying for possession of the suit premises against the appellants.

4. The suit was resisted by the appellants on various grounds, including on the ground of limitation. The learned trial Judge framed three issues. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. By a judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2010, the learned trial Judge decreed the said civil suit filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent within three months from the date of the said judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by he said judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2010, passed by the learned trial Judge, the appellants herein field an appeal (Civil Appeal No.489 of 2010) before the learned District Judge - 14 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

5. The learned District Judge formulated three points for determination. By a judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2011, passed by the learned District Judge - 14 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the said Civil Appeal No.489 of 2010 came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge - 14 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the appellants have preferred this second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited my attention to the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below and would submit that though the respondent had alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed by the appellants, the suit being under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and was filed after a period of six months from the date of the alleged dispossession, the learned trial Judge as well as the first appellate Court erroneously decreed the said suit instead of dismissing the said suit on the ground of limitation and maintainability of the said suit.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent (original plaintiff) failed to prove that the appellants had dispossessed the respondent from the suit premises. He submits that though the first appellate Court had rendered a finding that the respondent had not proved his dispossession from the suit premises, erroneously passed a decree for possession.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent had failed to prove that cause of action had arisen to file the suit and on that ground itself, the learned trial Judge ought to have dismissed the suit for possession filed by the