1 SA 500.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar , Advocate for the appellant. Smt. R.P. Khadkikar, Advocate holding for Mr.C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for the resp.no.1 to 3. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an Appeal by the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for possession on the ground that they are the owners of the property since the days of their fore-fathers. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the 2 SA 500.2010 appellants submits that the Courts below have misconstrued the revenue record and the oral evidence. The evidence on record substantiates the case of the appellant, but the Courts below have on minor contradictions, disbelieved the same. There is record to show that their forefathers were the original owner of the property and the same was given to the defendants as security. But, this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. 3. Per contra, Smt. R.P. Khadkikar, Advocate holding for Mr. C.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 supports the Judgment passed by the Court below and contends that it is the case of concurrent finding of fact. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. 4. The fact is that since prior to 1955, the record shows that the land stood in the name of the defendants. Even prior to that only 1/4th land was shown to have possessed by Gyana and remaining by Mohiuddin. These long standing entries have not been rebutted by the plaintiffs. Even plaintiff no. 1 in his deposition admitted that in the year 1950 also the name of Mohiuddin was recorded as owner and possessor to the extent of 3 SA 500.2010 50 paise. The name of Vithoba appears to the extent of ¼ and Narayan to the extent of ¼ only and the same continued. There were Pot Hissas also. Even the plaintiff could not prove the alleged theory of mortgage. Thereafter the sale transactions took place and the plaintiff is one of the attesting witness to the document. All these facets have been considered by the Courts below and held that the plaintiff does not prove his ownership to the property. 5. The view taken by the Courts below is possible view based on evidence. No perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The Second Appeal as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 500.2010