1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.691 OF 2010 Vithal S/o Jivan Gavane (died) through L.Rs. Kusumbai W/o Vithal Gavane and others ... Appellants. Versus Rajaram Shastri Guru Zenduji Buwa ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.R.Dheple, advocate for the appellants. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.692 OF 2010 Vithal S/o Jivan Gavane (died) through L.Rs. Kusumbai W/o Vithal Gavane and others ... Appellants. Versus Rajaram Shastri Guru Zenduji Buwa ... Respondent. 2 Mr.S.R.Dheple, advocate for the appellants. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.10.2010. PER COURT 1. These are defendants' Second Appeals. The present Respondent/original plaintiff had filed suit for possession on the ground that the same was the property of the Trust and the defendants were inducted as a licensees. Inspite of revocation of the license, the defendants have not vacated the possession. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred appeal. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that there are conflicting findings. The plaintiff has not proved the ownership of the suit property. In fact, it is 3 the property of the Government. According to the learned counsel, even the measurement done by TILR is as per survey numbers and not as per City Survey numbers. Now CTS numbers are in vogue. He further submitted that no permission as required U/s 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, has been obtained by the plaintiff. In absence of the permission, the suit itself is not maintainable. He further submitted that said Exh.36 was got executed by playing fraud upon the defendants. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts. To obtain possession from a licensee, the permission U/s 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, is not necessary. The moot question is whether the defendant can take a plea that the land on which the defendants are in possession is the Government land and the Trust is not the owner of the property. Earlier the present appellants had filed a suit bearing RCS No.207/1988, contending that he is in possession on the basis of the present agreement Exh.36 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 4 defendant. The said suit was filed by the defendants against the Municipal Council as the defendants were given a notice by the Municipal Council to demolish the construction on the ground that the same has been made on the Government land. As such when the Municipal Council had issued a notice asking the defendants to demolish the structure on the ground that it was on the Government land, the present defendants took the stand that the said land belongs to the present plaintiff and he is occupying the same as a licensee pursuant to Exh. 36. In the present case, when the suit is filed claiming possession, the defendant is taking a contrary stand stating that the lands belong to the Government and not to the plaintiff Trust. The admissions given in previous proceedings would be admissible as an admission Proprio- vigore as is held by the Apex Court in the case of "Thiru John (In C.A.Nos.1895-1896 of 1974) Vs.Subramhamanyan (In C.A.No.1907 of 1974) Vs. The Returning Officer and others" AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1724. 5 5. Further if the defendants have to take plea of a fraud, the particulars of fraud are required to be given as is laid down U/o 6 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. No such particulars are given in the pleadings nor any evidence is led to that effect. 6. In light of the above, it will not be open for the defendants to contend that the suit property is a Government Property. 7. In the result, as no substantial questions of law are involved in these Second Appeals, the Second Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of Second Appeals, the Civil Applications are also disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa69110 6