JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22/7/2006 passed in R.A.No.132/2004 by the Civil Jude (Sr.Dn) *Shorapur, Sitting at Shahapur, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2000, passed in O.S.No.132/1998 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Shahapur. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of land measuring 12 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.577/5 of Sagar Village, Tq. Shahapur and also sought for permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession over the land in any manner and for rectification of revenue records of suit land in the name of plaintiff by deleting the names of defendants. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of land in Sy.No.577/5 measuring 12 acres 8 guntas and the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The defendants are no way concerned to the suit land in any manner at any point of time. But the plaintiff had given the suit land to the defendants for half share crop basis for cultivating the suit land for 15 years. It is contended that plaintiff's ancestor were the absolute owner and in lawful possession of suit land. Now the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property. The defendants No.1 and 2 entered their names in the record of rights, without the knowledge and notice of the plaintiff and entries of record of rights are having no value in the eyes of law and there is no valid transfer of title. Defendants colluded with the revenue authorities, mutated the suit land without any legal basis. The defendants on the basis of wrong entries in the ROR extracts, are trying to interfere with the possession of the suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and injunction. 3.1. The defendants on the basis of wrong entries in the ROR extracts, are trying to interfere with the possession of the suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and injunction. 3.1. Defendants filed written statement contending that they are concerned only to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas of suit land towards eastern side of the suit property and further contended that the property was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's family. It is contended that since the time of their father, plaintiff was the owner and thereafter defendants are the owners and possessors of 6 acres 6 guntas of land on account of purchase made by the father of defendants few years prior to the year 1962. The mutation extract of the year 1962 is evident of this aspect. Further since 1962, in the ROR, either the name of father of defendants nor the name of defendants is appearing. It is alleged that defendants were cultivating the suit property for a period of 15 years to the date of plaint on half share crop basis, which has been clearly mentioned by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff could have mentioned in which year he took the possession of the land. It is contended that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas and name of the defendants are entered in the revenue records by valid mutation and it is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues and additional issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful owner of the land R.S.No.577/5 to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas? 2. Whether he further proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit land to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas from the time of his ancestors? 3. Whether the defendants prove that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than statutory period and they have thus acquired ownership over the suit property by way of adverse possession? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference and dispossession by the defendants? 5. 3. Whether the defendants prove that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than statutory period and they have thus acquired ownership over the suit property by way of adverse possession? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference and dispossession by the defendants? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction? 6. What decree or order? Addl Issue No.1: Whether the defendants proves that plaintiff has sold 6 acres 6 guntas of suit survey number towards Eastern side for Rs.1,000.00 to their father prior to 1962? 3.3. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. On the other hand, defendants examined their GPA holder as DW-1 and examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.D1 to D20. The Trial Court, after recording evidence and considering the material on record, held that the plaintiff has proved that he is the lawful owner of the land R.S.No.577/5 to the extent of 6 acres 2 guntas and further held that he is in lawful possession of the suit land to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas from the time of his ancestors and further held that the defendants have failed to prove that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than statutory period and they have thus acquired ownership over the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is further held that plaintiff has proved the alleged interference and dispossession by the defendants in respect of 6 acres 2 guntas and subsequently decreed the suit in part and declared that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas and possessor of suit property to the extent of 6 acres 2 guntas and defendants are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of 6 acres 2 guntas and the plaintiff is at liberty to seek possession of the land to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas from the defendants, under due process of law. 3.4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in R.A.No.132/2004. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. 3.4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in R.A.No.132/2004. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether appellants/defendant proves that the judgment and decree under appeal and findings of the trial Court are erroneous perverse and capricious and liable to be interfered with? 2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent proves that, the judgment and decree under appeal deserves to be maintained? 3. What order? 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciation of the evidence on record held that the defendants have proved that the judgment and decree under appeal and findings recorded by the trial Court are erroneous, perverse, capricious and liable to be interfered with and allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for defendants. 5. This Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law; a) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court? b) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the entire suit when the defendants have admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. The appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit in part to an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas. He further submits that the plaintiff has restricted his claim to an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas and defendants are in legal possession of remaining portion of the suit schedule property to the said extent and the appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the appeal solely on that ground that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. He submits that the appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the entire suit. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits his no objection for decreeing the suit in respect of 6 acres 2 guntas as the defendants are in possession of the land to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas under the sale deed since from the year 1962 and the said fact has not been disputed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits his no objection for decreeing the suit in respect of 6 acres 2 guntas as the defendants are in possession of the land to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas under the sale deed since from the year 1962 and the said fact has not been disputed. He submits that on the strength of the sale in favour of defendants, name of defendants is entered in the revenue records and since 1962 the defendants are in possession of the property of portion of suit to an extent of 6 acres 6 guntas. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. From perusal of the records, the defendants have clearly admitted that plaintiff is the owner of suit land bearing R.S.No.577/5 to the extent of 12 acres 8 guntas. In view of admission of defendant, the trial Court was justified in answering issue No.1 in affirmative. Further it is the case of the defendants that they have purchased the property, but no documentary evidence has been produced to show that the said property has been purchased by them. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff restrict his claim to an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas. The appellate Court has allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and also the defendants have established that they are in possession of the suit property as the owners by way of adverse possession since from 1962 without any interruption from the plaintiff. The defendants themselves have admitted in the written statement and also in the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 that they are in possession of the suit property to the extent of 6 acres 6 guntas and they are not in possession of the remaining extent of land. 10. The appellate Court without considering the evidence and also admission of defendants in the written statement, has committed an error in allowing the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellate Court ought to have confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court in part, on the contrary has dismissed the entire suit. The appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court ought to have confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court in part, on the contrary has dismissed the entire suit. The appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff. 11. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the entire extent of land, whereas it is the case of the defendants that defendants have purchased an extent of 6 acres 6 guntas in the year 1962 and name of the defendants is appearing in the record of rights since from 1962 to that extent. Now the plaintiff has confined his suit only to the extent of 6 acres 2 guntas and the defendants have also not claimed any right, title or interest over the said portion of land i.e., 6 acres 2 guntas towards western side. In view of the same, the defendants have also not denied the title of the plaintiff to the said extent. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time. In view of the above discussions, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time. 12. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dtd. 22/7/2006 passed in R.A.No.132/2004 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) *Shorapur, Sitting at Shahapur, is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. The plaintiff is declared as the owner to the extent of 6 acres 2 guntas towards western side and the defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property to an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas towards western side.