1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.135 OF 2008 Annappa Harbasappa Jamkhande .. Appellant. -versus Hajratpeer Shamnameer Darga .. Respondent. Shri.Shirshak Chavanke i/b Shri S.M. Oak, advocate for the appellant Ms.Rushali S. Chavan i/b Shri R.M. Momin, for the respondent. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J DATED: 22nd July, 2009. P.C. 1. This is second appeal is preferred by the original defendant No.l, challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, in a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of possession of land by a registered Trust from the defendant No.l. The trial Court decreed the suit against which the original defendant No.l 2 preferred appeal which came to be dismissed on 1.1.2001 by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Sangli. Against these two decisions, appellant-original defendant No.l has preferred above first appeal. 2. Learned Counsel Shri.Shirshak Chavanke, for the appellant contended that the Courts below committed serious error in decreeing the suit and directing the appellant to hand over possession of the suit property. He contended that the certificate of registration dated 22nd May, l954 is not duly proved in as much as original copy of the certificate is not produced on record and the reliance is placed on the xerox copy of the said certificate. He further contended that since certificate of registration itself is not proved, it can not be said that the plaintiff trust is exempted under section 88-B(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, l948, (for short called as “Act”) from the application of the Act. He further submitted that in view of the cordial relations of the defendant No.l with the trustees of plaintiff trust, he never insisted for issuance of rent receipts though he is a 3 tenant of the suit property for more than 40 years. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was the Secretary of the plaintiff trust. Though he has deposed to the effect that he had obtained rent receipts from the plaintiff trust, he did not produce the same in the Court save and except rent receipt pertaining to the year of the institution of the suit. The basic claim of the defendant No.l that resolution was passed by the plaintiff trust by which tenancy was created itself was not produced by the defendant No.l. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that after the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, the respondents have obtained possession of the suit property in execution proceeding. 4. Having regard to the provisions of section 88B(b) of the Act, plaintiff trust is registered for the charitable purpose like, Devasthan, Hospital and educational institutions and consequently is exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the appellants claim of tenancy is based on the resolution 4 passed by the plaintiff trust. That itself is not produced on record. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record, recorded findings to the aforesaid effect. I do not find any infirmity in decisions passed by the Courts below. No substantial question arises in the second appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)