1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.424 OF 2010 Appasaheb Parisa Kininge, since deceased, through heirs Smt.Champabai A.Kininge & Ors. .. Appellants V/s Raghunath Rajaram Aparadh & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Manoj A. Patil for the Appellants. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 18th August, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. This appeal is preferred by the original Defendants against the judgment and decree dated 12th August, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ichalkaranji in Regular Civil Appeal No.292 of 2005 arising from the judgment and decree dated 25th August, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ichalkaranji in Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1998. By these judgments, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the Respondents-original plaintiffs and directed the Appellants herein to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the Respondents, failing which the Respondents would be entitled to get possession through the Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred as per their status in the trial Court. 2. In support of this appeal, Mr.Patil raised following contentions: (i) Plaintiffs have asserted that the Defendants are licensee in the suit property. The Courts below held that Plaintiffs failed to establish that Defendants are licensee in the suit property and that Plaintiffs have determined their licence. In view of this, Courts below should have dismissed the suit. (ii) Defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. (iii) At any rate, in view of Sanad Exh.82 Defendants became owners of the suit property. 3. In so far as first contention about the failure on the part of Plaintiffs in 2 proving that Defendants are licensee in suit property is concerned, the Courts below have recorded finding that Defendants are in permissive possession of the suit property. It is also not in dispute that Plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from Parisa Kininge under the registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1952. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by Defendants that since Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants are licensee in suit property and that they have not terminated the licence, the Defendants can continue to remain in possession. Once the plaintiffs have established their title and the Courts below have recorded a finding that Defendants are in permissive possession of the suit property, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession from Defendants. 4. In so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, I have perused the written statement filed by Defendants. Considering the assertions made in the written statement, it cannot be said that Defendants have pleaded necessary ingredients of adverse possession. The Courts below have recorded a finding that Defendants have not given necessary particulars of adverse possession and have not established their case of adverse possession. 5. After hearing learned counsel for Defendants and after going through the material on record, I do not find that the Courts below have committed any error in reaching the conclusion. In so far as the trial Court is concerned, the trial Court has recorded a finding on this aspect in paragraph Nos.14 to 16 of its judgment. In so far as Appeal Court is concerned, the Appeal Court has considered the plea of adverse possession in paragraph Nos.25 to 32 of its judgment and came to the conclusion that Defendants have simply pleaded that since 1952 till the demise Parisa was in possession of the suit property and after demise of Parisa, they continued in possession of the property. The Courts below observed that such statements are not sufficient to constitute the hostile title by way of adverse possession. I do no find any error committed either by the trial Court or by the Appeal Court on this point. 6. Lastly it was submitted that in view of Sanad Exh.82 Defendants became owners of the suit property. In my opinion, said submission is devoid of any 3 substance. In the case of Narbheramji V/s.Vivekramji Bhagaramji Ramsnehi 1939 Bombay Law Reporter 939, considering section 133 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it was held as under:- “A Sanad granted u/s.133 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is not in the nature of a document of title, but is a document affecting rights only between the Crown and the person to whom it is granted”. Thus, the document of Sanad is not a document of title but it is document affecting the rights only between the Government and Defendants herein. 7. Mr.Patil invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Raikar V/s.Amarlal Pareira, 2007 (3) ALL M.R.222, to submit that Defendants have established their plea of adverse possession. In that case after considering the material on record, the Court recorded that the necessary ingredients of adverse possession were established by the plaintiff therein. However, in the instant case, both the Courts have concurrently recorded that Defendants have not set up necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession and consequently have not established plea of adverse possession. On the other hand in paragraph No.11 of the said judgment, it is observed that it is settled law that the concurrent finding recorded by the Court .howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in its jurisdiction u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless those are found to be based on perverse findings or on inadmissible evidence on record. 8. As indicated earlier, the Courts below have recorded a finding on appreciation of evidence. It cannot be said that these findings are either perverse or based on inadmissible evidence. The reliance placed on the judgment in Narendra Raikar’s case (supra) does not advance case of the Defendants. In this view of the matter, I do not find that appeal raises any substantial question of law. Appeal is therefore dismissed, however with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)