-1- GPN-J-2459-ARHCBN-3-04-1,00,000-ALA4* [Spl.-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.79e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 443/2008. Krushnarao Vasudeorao Harsulkar . - versus- Smt. Krishnabai Deshpande ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2009. Heard Advocate Shri S.W. Sambre, for appellant/ original defendant and Advocate Shri A.S. Deshpande, for respondents/plaintiffs. Challenge is to concurrent judgments and decrees by which the Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction of present appellant as licencee. The contention of Advocate Shri Sambre, is that sale deed allegedly executed by present appellant in favour of deceased Madhukar Deshpande was dated 08.04.1953 and no steps were taken by the purchaser till 2003 to obtain possession. Regular Civil Suit No. 2/2003 is the first suit filed for that purpose. He relies upon the pleas taken in the written statement to show that the appellant was paying property tax and was also effecting repairs and construction of the -2- property purchased by Shri Madhukar. According to him, therefore, the finding that the present appellant was a licencee is misconceived. He further states that Regular Civil Suit No. 111/1992 was filed for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, but that suit came to be dismissed in default. According to him that dismissal is not relevant, but it only shows that the appellant was always claiming to be in adverse possession. He states that as all these aspects are not considered, the very perspective in which the controversy has been viewed is vitiated and hence Second Appeal needs to be admitted. Advocate Shri Deshpande, on the other hand contends that the sale deed in favour of deceased Madhukar was executed by Shri Shambhashiv Bhat on 08.04.1953 and it was specific case of respondent that, appellant was permitted to stay there as licencee because of his needs. It is contended that there is no challenge to validity of sale deed dated 08.04.1953 and it is further stated that the Regular Civil Suit No. 111/1992 was dismissed, no steps were taken for its restoration. It is to be noted that title of deceased Madhukar or sale deed dated 08.04.1953 in his favour is not in dispute. The appellant claimed adverse -3- possession and therefore burden was upon him to show that he was openly asserting the rights adverse to the deceased Madhukar. Payment of property tax by a person who is residing therein cannot be taken as one such assertion. Though in written statement some other facts are pleaded no evidence in support thereof has been advanced. Hence the view concurrently reached by the Courts below after appreciation of entire evidence led by the parties, cannot be labeled as erroneous or perverse. No substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. Second Appeal is thus dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.