1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 97/2000 (Raju Vikram Humane Vs. Smt. Vatsalabai Jagobaji Ramteke) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 10 th JULY, 2008. Heard Shri Lapalikar for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction and the possession of the suit property. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and, in fact, he was the owner of the suit property in pursuance of the oral Gift which was made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. In the alternative, the defendant pleaded ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court framed the issues and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had 2 not succeeded in proving her ownership over the suit property, and that it was not necessary to decide as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The Court held that the defendant had not succeeded in proving that he became the owner of the suit property in pursuance of the oral gift. The claim of the defendant to the ownership of the suit property by adverse possession was also negatived by the trial Court. The trial Court, however, erroneously, held that the suit was only for declaration and injunction and not for possession. The first appellate Court reversed some of the findings recorded by the trial Court, to hold that the plaintiff had proved her ownership over the suit property. The appellate Court confirmed the findings against the defendant on the question of ownership of the property in pursuance of the gift and by adverse possession. The appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the defendant was liable to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff could not have revoked the licence of the defendant without issuing a notice. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the first appellate Court ought not have reversed the findings 3 recorded by the trial Court. The first submission made on behalf of the appellant is liable to be discarded for the sole reason that a notice in writing is not contemplated before the revocation of licence. Secondly, it also cannot be said that the first appellate Court was not justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court as the trial Court had erroneously assumed that the plaintiff had not sought the relief of possession, when the plaintiff had clearly sought the relief of possession in the prayer clause of the plaint. The first appellate Court has, in fact, appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties on record in the right perspective to hold against the defendant/appellant. It also cannot be said that the plaintiff has not proved her ownership over the suit property as there was ample evidence to prove the same and it was the defendant who has admitted her ownership and claimed ownership over the suit property in pursuance of the alleged oral gift made by the plaintiff in his favour. The first appellate Court rightly held that the defendant had, in effect, admitted the ownership of the property by claiming title to the suit property in pursuance of the gift and also by the adverse possession. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the first appellate Court. 4 The findings of the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP