31-SA-569-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2022 Dashrath Ganpat Patil …Appellant Vs. Balaram Babu Sante and Ors. …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1368 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6945 OF 2025 Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay a/w. Mr. Aditya Shirke for the applicant. Mr. R. D. Soni i/b. Mr. R. P. Lote for the respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026 ORDER : APPLICATION NO. 6945 OF 2025 1. This application is for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the sole appellant. The application is within time. 2. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. 3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith in the court. SECOND APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2022 1/6 Swapnil 31-SA-569-2022.docx 1. This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff no. 1 to challenge the concurrent judgments and decree dismissing his suit for a declaration and injunction. The suit was filed on 2nd July 2004 for a declaration that the registered conveyance deed dated 19th June 1972 is forged and illegal. The plaintiffs further prayed for a declaration that they are the owners (landlords) of the suit land and a declaration that the defendants have no right, title, or interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the conveyance deed and an injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. 2. Both courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation, that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession of the suit property, and that the conveyance deed was forged as alleged. The suit was also dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The impugned conveyance deed was executed by the plaintiffs' father and the other co-sharers, i.e., the plaintiffs’ father's brothers, who were not added as parties to the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit 2/6 31-SA-569-2022.docx is erroneously dismissed as barred by limitation. He relies upon Article 56 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the plaintiffs were always in possession of the suit property, and, since there was an apprehension of dispossession, they issued a notice dated 25th May 2004. In response, the defendants relied upon the conveyance deed dated 19th June 1972. Hence, the plaintiffs’ knowledge about the conveyance deed was only when the suit notice was replied. Hence, when there was allegation that the conveyance deed was a forged document. The limitation period would be three years from the plaintiffs’ knowledge. Hence, in view of Article 56, the suit could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the plaintiffs’ names were entered into the revenue record after their father’s death and even the receipts regarding the payment of taxes supported the plaintiffs’ contention that they were in possession of the suit property. He, therefore, submits that the second appeal raises substantial questions of law on the point of limitation and the substantive evidence 3/6 31-SA-569-2022.docx produced to support the theory of possession. 5. He submits that when the conveyance deed was challenged on the ground that it is a forged document, the contents of the said document could not have been relied upon to record the finding of possession. He, therefore, submits that the second appeal would also raise a substantial question of law on misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the impugned judgments and decrees would warrant interference. 6. I have perused the papers of the second appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out the plaintiffs’ admissions that the suit property was never cultivated by them and that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. Even if the issue of limitation is to be considered, the suit is held to be within limitation in view of Article 56 of the Limitation Act; the second appeal would not warrant any interference on merits. Both the courts have concurrently held that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The allegation of forgery has not been proved by the plaintiffs. Ganpat Patil, who had signed the conveyance document, had never raised any dispute 4/6 31-SA-569-2022.docx regarding its validity. Admittedly, the suit property was not exclusively owned by Ganpat Patil. Hence, in the absence of the other co-sharers who executed the conveyance document along with Ganpat Patil, a declaration of title cannot be entertained. The issue regarding the allegation of forgery would not warrant any interference in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts. 7. There is no valid ground raised in the second appeal for challenging the conveyance on the ground of forgery. Hence, even if the suit is held to be within limitation, both the courts have recorded the findings of fact and the merits of the prayers by framing issues on the grounds of forgery, non- joinder, and the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a declaration on the ground of ownership and possession. Hence, even if the suit is held to be within limitation, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts would not warrant any interference. Hence, no purpose would be served by admitting the second appeal on the point of limitation. 8. The second appeal, therefore, does not warrant interference, as it does not raise any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. 5/6 31-SA-569-2022.docx 9. Pending interim application, if any, is disposed of as infructous. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 6/6