1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.362/2003 GUNWANT RAGHUNATHRAO THAOREY ..VS.. SUDHAKAR VENKATRAO THAOREY & 3 ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 29 /9 / 2010 Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G. Choube, the learned advocate for respondent no.4. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. It was pleaded that the property of the defendant no.1 at Laxmi Nagar, was acquired by the N.I.T. and while giving the monetary benefits to the defendant no.1, the N.I.T. also gave a piece of plot located in Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur on lease hold rights for a period of 99 years. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 never wanted to settle in Nagpur and therefore, he agreed to transfer the allotment of the leasehold rights in favour of the plaintiff. The premium was paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff also constructed a house on the plot of land. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that he permitted the plaintiff to occupy the premises 2 as a licensee because of close relationship. The defendant no.1 denied that he had ever entered in an agreement with the plaintiff for transferring the leasehold rights in the plot. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had paid the premium to the N.I.T., and the defendant had allowed the plaintiff to make the construction on the suit property. The trial court held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the defendant had agreed to transfer the said plot in favour of the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff did not have a right to claim a declaration that he had exclusive title over the suit property. The trial court held that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for specific performance of contract, rather than filing a suit for declaration. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of ownership. The first appellate court on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he acquired any legal right in the suit plot by virtue of an alleged agreement of sale as pleaded by him. The court held that the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not proved his ownership over the suit property, as there was no document of title executed in favour of the plaintiff, either by the defendant or by the N.I.T. By considering the rules of the N.I.T., the first appellate court held that no sanction or permission of the government was obtained by the defendant or the plaintiff before entering into an agreement of sale and 3 the plaintiff did not have a legal right over the suit property. The findings recorded by the appellate court are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since the plaintiff did not prove his title to the suit property by producing a valid document of title, the courts rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.