911 SA173.22.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 173/2022 Shri Ramchandra Sudhakar s/o Namdeo Motghare, Aged about 64 yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o. Tilak Ward, Pola Chowk, Near Shriram Akhada, Tumsar, Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. …. APPELLANT VERSUS Rajesh S/o Shyamsunder Jaiswal, C/o. Shri Bhojraj Namdeo Motghare, Aged about 55 yrs., Occ. Daily Wages, R/o. Juni Mangalwari, Bhujade Mohalla Adamsha Chowk, Paayrigalli, Itwari, Nagpur. ….RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. A.P. Shinde, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 09/05/2025. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. 2025:BHC-NAG:5156 911 SA173.22.odt 2 2. The sole respondent is original plaintiff. He has filed a suit for possession against the appellant/defendant on the basis of sale- deed dated 12.01.2001 executed in his favour by late Radhabai, mother of defendant/appellant. Both learned Courts have held that plaintiff has proved the sale-deed dated 12.01.2001 executed in his favour. Radhabai the vendor of the plaintiff and mother of the appellant/defendant has expired on 17.04.2004 i.e. after a period of three years from the date of execution of the sale-deed. The appellant/ defendant has stated in his cross-examination that he was aware about the sale-deed executed by his mother Radhabai in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. It is admitted position on record that neither Radhabai nor appellant/defendant has challenged the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent/plaintiff. It has come on record that the property was initially owned by one Punabai, deceased mother of Radhabai who executed a gift-deed with respect to the suit property in favour of Radhabai. Thus, Radhabai became owner of the suit property by virtue of the gift-deed. It is not in dispute that Punabai has already expired prior to the execution of the sale-deed. The title of the respondent/plaintiff cannot therefore be disputed. Learned Courts 911 SA173.22.odt 3 have recorded proper findings with respect to the title of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property. The finding recorded by both learned Courts are pure findings of facts which are in accordance with the evidence that has come on record. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of imagination. On the contrary, the respondent/plaintiff’s title is admitted by the appellant/defendant as is apparent from his admission in the cross-examination regarding execution of sale-deed by Radhabai in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. As regards the point of limitation, the sale-deed in favour of plaintiff is executed on 12.01.2001 and the suit is filed on 28.01.2005. The limitation for filing suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years from the date on which the possession of appellant/ defendant became adverse. There is no pleading of adverse possession in the written statement. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by learned counsel for appellant/defendant with respect to point of limitation is liable to be rejected as has been rightly rejected by both learned Courts below. 911 SA173.22.odt 4 3. For the reasons recorded above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/defendants states that the appellant/defendant be granted time to vacate the suit property, since it is his residential house. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff states that the defendant is residing elsewhere and he has only put his lock over the suit property. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant makes a statement on instruction that the appellant/defendant shall vacate suit property and hand over the possession thereof to respondent/plaintiff on or before 31.08.2025. Accepting the statement as an undertaking to the Court, execution of the decree for possession is stayed upto 31.08.2025. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J ) Gohane