1 sa 752.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 752 OF 2010 Prayagbai W/o Digamber Jawale .. Appellant Versus Rajkumar S/o Appasaheb Shinde .. Respondent Shri S. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. B. Rohile, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03RD MAY, 2011. PER COURT : . This is an appeal by the original defendant. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the defendant has preferred the present second appeal. 2. Shri S. S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the theory put forth by the plaintiff could not have 2 sa 752.10 been relied upon. It was contended by the learned counsel that when the litigations were pending between the parties in the shape of proceedings U/Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is highly improbable, the plaintiff would induct the defendant in possession of the property as tenant. This circumstance has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. According to the learned counsel even agreement Exhibit 42 has not been proved by the plaintiff as is required under the law. Actually, the respondent is resident of Tuljapur and there was no need for him to purchase a plot or house at Osmanabad. 3. Per contra, Shri Rohile, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the agreement has been proved by the evidence of the plaintiff and the evidence of the attesting witness. The appellant has admitted in her cross examination that it was to her knowledge that she executed sale deed in favour of present respondent. The Courts on appreciation of evidence have arrived at concurrent findings. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgments. It is held by both the Courts that Exhibit 42 has been proved i. e. rent agreement. So also the sale deed by the 3 sa 752.10 defendant in favour of plaintiff has been proved. The plaintiff has also obtained the possession of the suit property pursuant to the execution proceedings. The claim of the plaintiff is supported by the documentary evidence i. e. in the shape of rent agreement which is duly proved by the plaintiff and his witnesses. There is nothing to discard the evidence of plaintiff in that regard, so also document Exhibit 42. 5. The view taken by the Courts below is plausible and possible view based on appreciation of evidence. The second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/May 11