1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.433 of 2009 (Smt. Shantabai w/o Narayanrao Ramelwar and others v. Smt. Gopikabai Sakkaramji Borewar (dead) and Ghanshyam s/o Sakkaramji Borewar) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for Appellant. Coram : A.R. Joshi, J. Dated : 24 th November, 2009 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants. 2. The appellants are the original defendants. Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, the present respondents, for possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. It was the plea of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 had purchased certain plot and constructed the house thereon. The defendant No.1, the present appellant No.1, is the daughter of plaintiff No.1’s brother, who had been deserted from her matrimonial house and allowed to reside in one room. It was the gratuitous licence free of charges on the condition that she will vacate the premises as and when called. 3. The suit of the respondents was decreed and the directions were given to the present appellants to hand over the vacant 2 possession of the suit plot. The other incidental reliefs were also granted. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the First Appeal was preferred by the appellants. It came to be dismissed. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the original plaintiffs also preferred an appeal for denial of their prayer for mesne profits. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. However, what is before this Court is the Second Appeal preferred by the original defendants, the present appellants challenging the decree of eviction. 4. After perusing the reasoning given by the Trial Court and also by the First Appellate Court and after hearing the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellants, it is a factual position that the present appellants did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary and their main contention is that they became the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. 5. During arguments, the learned Advocate for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Subhash Joshi and another v. Mohd. Sultan s/o Abdul Gani and another, reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 612. This Court has carefully gone through the ratio laid down in the said judgment and considered the defence of the appellants, mainly that of becoming owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. In the opinion of this Court, the ratio mentioned in the said case has no application so far as the 3 matter at hand is concerned. 6. Needless to mention that the only pleadings would not prove the case of the party. In the present matter at hand, there was nothing before the Trial Court to accept the defence of the present appellants as to the right over the suit property. It is also an admitted position that though alternatively the appellants say that they were the licensees and were paying the licence fee, there was no material brought before the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit and the appeal thereon had also been rightly dismissed by the First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to re-agitate the matter and there is no legal issue to be tried. 7. Hence, the present Second Appeal is dismissed summarily. Judge. pdl