IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.376 OF 2010. (GANGARAM KISHAN DHAYDE....VS.. GANGARAM MOAROTI GUNJAL.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.V. Amle, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for possession of the same. According to the plaintiff, a plot was allotted to the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Lonar and he had constructed a hut on the suit plot. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff paid the taxes of the land to the Gram Panchayat but the defendant illegally encroached upon the suit land some time in the month of May/ June, 1993. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a perpetual injunction against the defendant. 2. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plot was allotted to the plaintiff and the defendant had committed encroachment thereon. According to the defendant he was living in a house constructed on the plot since last 30 to 40 years and therefore, he has perfected his title over the same by adverse possession. The defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial and the first appellate Court had, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving his ownership and title over the suit property and also the fact that the defendant had illegally taken the possession of the suit property in the month of May/ June, 1993. The Courts held that the defendant had also not proved that he became the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 4. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 5. Both the Courts rightly held that the certificated issued by the Tahsildar, Lonar at Exh.26 was not a document of title and moreover the boundaries mentioned in this certificate did not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. The Courts, further observed that the plaintiff had not produced any tax receipt for the period from 1987 to 1991 though certain receipts were produced for the previous period. The Courts held that mere payment of tax and acceptance of the same by the Gram Panchayat did not prove the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. 6. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.