1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 /2011 Sanjay s/o Shyamkant Chaudhari & one vs. Deorao Laxmanrao Deshmukh (Dead) Through LRs and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr K N Dedhe, Advocate for appellant CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 7th September,2011. Heard. The respondent/original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his ownership over Survey No. 86 (3) {old} and Survey Nos. 148 and 141 of Mouza Khairgaon, Tq.Samudrapur Dist. Wardha and he also claimed relief for possession. The respondent/original plaintiff also sought direction to the Taluqa Inspector of Land Records, for correction of revenue records, obviously without going to the concerned authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ( henceforth referred to as “the MLR Code”). The trial Court framed as many as five issues. The first issue was whether the plaintiff proves his title to Survey No.148 and 141; while there is no issue framed as regards Survey No.86/ 3 (old). The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim possession. Finally, the trial Court decreed the suit partly with costs but did not make any 2 declaration or grant any of the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses (I) and (II) of the plaint. In paragraph 12, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner but to ascertain how much area plaintiff was entitled, an enquiry was ordered to be held by the T.I.L.R. for correction of record. That direction to TILR was obviously without jurisdiction since the issue squarely fell within the parameters of the provisions of the M.L R. Code. Be that as it may, in Appeal filed by the present appellants before the Appellate Court Point No. 1 that was framed was, whether the respondent/plaintiff proved his title to the suit field and that was answered in the negative. Point No.2 was whether the direction issued to TILR through defendants 3 and 4 was called for and that was again answered in the negative. It is noteworthy that appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for tendering additional evidence which was allowed and they produced and proved documentary evidence about the suit land as having been allotted to their father being ex-serviceman. Be that as it may, the Appellate Court held that the respondent /plaintiff failed to prove the title and also further held that the direction to TILR was not called for. Consequently the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal. Mr. Dadhe, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the since the Appellate Court reversed the operative part No. (2) of the decree about direction to the TILR, the Appellate Court should have, in the operative order, indicated that the Appeal was partly allowed and, therefore, that constitutes a categorical substantial question of law. I do not agree with the submission of 3 the learned counsel for the simple reason that there is categorical finding on Point No. 1 recorded by the Appellate Court that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his title. It further held that direction to TILR was not called for. In my opinion, answer to Point No.2 was correct inasmuch as no such direction could be issued by the Civil Court since the issue is in the realm of MLR Code and authorities under the Code are required to take care of the situation. That being so, the respondent/plaintiff did not get any relief against the appellants. Be that as it may, the Appellate Court rightly decided the issue. It is not necessary for me to comment whether the appellant proved title or not since that was never the issue before the trial Court. The operative part made by the Appellate Court saying that the appeal was dismissed cannot be read in isolation with the body of the judgment and order made by the lower Appellate Court and, therefore, even if the Appellate Court has said that Appeal was dismissed, the same cannot constitute a question of law, much less substantial question of law. In the result, the Appeal being sans any merit deserve dismissal, which I direct. JUDGE sahare