- 1 - 901-sa-701-2010 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.701 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1884 OF 2010 Smt. Sadhana S. Gavas .. Appellant V/s. Sakharam R. Suki (since deceased) through his Legal Heir- 1- Sharad A. Suki & Others. .. Respondents. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. V. B. Rajure, for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C:- 1 On 26th August, 2011, I had heard learned Counsel Mr. Walawalkar and the hearing was adjourned to 30th August, 2011 for enabling him to take instructions. Thereafter, on 30th August, 2011, 13th September, 2011, and 11th October, 2011, the hearing was adjourned to explore the possibility of settlement. On 21st October, 2011, the hearing was concluded and the Judgment was reserved, so that the Appellant can explore the possibility of settlement. Today, Mr. Walawalkar on - 2 - 901-sa-701-2010 instructions states that settlement is not possible. The Respondent had filed RCS No.56 of 1994 for permanent injunction and alternately possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sawantwadi. The suit was filed in respect of the Municipal House No.862 and it was the case of the Plaintiff that he had purchased the property by registered Sale Deed dated 3rd May, 1980. The properties bearing C.S. No. 5398, 5396 and 5395 were owned by the Defendants are adjacent to the suit property and according to the Plaintiff, under the pretext of the construction of the wall between the suit property and the property of Defendant, an agreement was executed on 12th May, 1993. Thereafter, in respect of the construction of the wall, the Plaintiff started claiming ownership over the C.S. No.5394. Hence, the suit was filed. 2 This suit was contested by the Defendant by filing Written Statement below Exhibit 13. The execution of the Sale Deed dated 3rd May, 1980 was disputed. By Judgment and Order dated 18th October, 2006, the suit was decreed and decree for possession and mandatory injunction to remove the wall constructed between C.S. No.5393 and 5394 was passed. 3 Aggrieved by this Judgment, the Appellant/Defendant filed - 3 - 901-sa-701-2010 Civil Appeal No.174 of 2006 in the District Court, Sindhudurg at Oros. By impugned Judgment and Order dated 21st August, 2010, the learned District Judge-I, Sindhudurg at Oros has dismissed the said Appeal. 4 The learned Judge of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the Plaintiff has proved the title over the suit property. The claim of the Appellant/Defendant was that C.T.S. No.5394 was not mentioned in the registered Sale Deed dated 7th May, 1980 by oversight and the Defendant is claiming on the basis of the Deed of Rectification dated 2nd June, 1982 executed by original owner Krishnaji Bhalchandra Sabnis at Exhibit 118; thereby, purportedly clarifying the earlier Sale Deed dated 7th May, 1980. 5 Mr. Walawalkar, learned Advocate heavily relied on this Deed of Rectification. However, admittedly, the Plaintiff was not a party to this Deed. Further, the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff dated 3rd May, 1980 at Exhibit 68 was prior in point of time vis-a-vis, the Sale Deed dated 7th May, 1980 executed in favour of the Defendant and the Deed of Rectification dated 2nd June, 1982 executed in favour of the Defendant. It is thus clear that as on 7th May, 1980, the vendor of the Defendant- Krishnaji B. Sabnis did not have any title over the CTS No.5394. The Trial - 4 - 901-sa-701-2010 Court and the Appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence on record and have recorded concurrent findings which are pure findings of facts. No question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. 6 At this stage, on the oral request of Mr. Walawalkar, interim order of status-quo will continue for a period of eight weeks. 7 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No.1884 of 2010 does not survive and the same is also disposed off. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)