1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 228/2010 (Kunjan Harbaji Bharade VERSUS Ramesh Harbaji Bharade) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anup Dhore, counsel for the appellant . Shri D.G. Paunikar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house from his maternal uncle Ganpatrao on 21.07.1976 by a registered sale-deed. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the year 1978, the defendant requested the plaintiff to accommodate him in the suit house and considering the blood relation and the defendant’s financial condition, the plaintiff accommodated the defendant in the suit house. Though the plaintiff demanded the possession of the suit house after some time, the defendant refused to vacate the same and, hence, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff. 2 The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house. It was the case of the defendant that the defendant was staying in the suit house even before the alleged sale-deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1976. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had not paid the consideration towards the purchase of the property and the plaintiff was taking advantage of the sale-deed with an ulterior motive to evict the defendant, who was residing in the property since the year 1976. The defendant claimed to be in adverse possession of the suit house and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the suit property as he purchased the same from Ganpatrao by a registered sale-deed dated 21.07.1976. The Courts held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that he had accommodated the defendant in the suit property considering the blood relation and the financial condition of the defendant. The Courts held that the defendant failed to prove that he was residing in the suit property prior to the sale-deed dated 21.07.1976 and that his maternal uncle had given possession 3 of the suit house to the defendant. The Courts also held that the defendant failed to prove that Ganpatrao had executed a nominal sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale was without consideration. The Courts then held that the defendant had failed to prove that he became the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not tenable before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur and only the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to decide the same in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is liable to be rejected for the reason that the defendant was neither a tenant nor a licensee in the suit premises. It was also not the case of the defendant in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable before the trial Court and the jurisdiction to decide the same was with the Small Causes Court at Nagpur. The plaint pleadings clearly show that the defendant is the real brother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had accommodated the defendant in his house considering the blood relation and the defendants poor financial condition. There is no pleading that the defendant is the 4 licensee of the plaintiff nor is it case of the defendant that the defendant was the licensee of the plaintiff and, hence, the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. In fact, the defendant claimed ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 341 (Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & another Versus Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar & others) cannot be of any assistance to the case of the appellant to hold that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The findings recorded by both the Courts being pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE