1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2006 Punjaji Sarjerao Shinde, age: 65 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o Karanjkheda, Tq.Kannad, District Aurangabad. Appellant Versus Ananda Sandu Murade, age: 45 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o Karanjkheda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. Respondent Mr.M.D.Joshi, advocate for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 Original defendant is raising exception to the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 2 Respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.319/96 claiming possession of plot bearing No.43 situate at village Karanjkheda, Tq.Kannad, on the basis of title. It is the contention of plaintiff that he has been allotted plot by the Tahsildar in view of certificate issued on 05.12.1985 and he was put in possession over the said plot. However, defendant, by use of force, dispossessed the plaintiff. A request was made by the plaintiff to the defendant for handing over vacant possession of the plot, however, defendant refused. Plaintiff, as such, is constrained to approach the Court. 3 Defendant appeared and resisted the suit and contended that he is in possession of the suit plot without any disturbance since last 15 to 16 years. It 2 is his contention that he perfected the title by virtue of his continued, open and unobstructed possession over the suit plot. 4 After recording evidence of the parties, trial Court reached a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his case in respect of allotment of plot in his favour by the Tahsildar. It has also been recorded that the plaintiff has established his title in respect of the plot. So far as claim raised by defendant regarding perfection of his title, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendant has failed to establish that his possession is adverse to the claim raised by plaintiff. The trial Court, as such, decreed the suit filed by plaintiff. 5 Regular Civil Appeal No.150/2001 was preferred by the defendant, which was heard and disposed of by IV Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, who was pleased to dismiss the same in view of the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2004. 6 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The Courts below have recorded a finding on appreciation of evidence to the effect that plaintiff has established his title in relation to the property. The defendant has failed to establish his case in respect of perfection of title by virtue of his continued, open and unobstructed possession. There does not appear to be any error in appreciation of evidence by Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of this, Civil Application No.5684/2005 does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa25206