1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Secopnd Appeal No. 299/2010 (Govindrao Bakaram Nasare VERSUS Prashant Dattatraya Nasare & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.G. Paunikar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 12, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property i.e. the house property. It is not in dispute that the property was initially owned by Bakaram and Tukaram. Govindrao, the plaintiff is the son of Bakaram whereas the defendants are the legal heirs of Tukaram. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants tried to break the lock of the suit house and take forcible possession of the same and, therefore, the suit was instituted. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. They pleaded that there was a oral partition of the property between Bakaram and 2 Tukaram and the defendants were in possession of the property, which fell to the share of Tukaram in terms of the partition in the year 1953. It was pleaded that, in thepartition, the northern portion of the house property, that is the terrace (Baithak) came to the share of Bakaram and southern portion of the house property fell to the share of Tukaram, the father of defendant no.2. After the death of Tukaram and Bakaram, the defendants started paying the taxes of their portion of the house property separately. The trial as well as the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in proving that the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the entire house property. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants were the licensees in the suit house. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. It was observed by the first appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the legal owner and occupier of the suit house. Since the first appellate Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession of a part of the suit house in view of the partition, which was effected some time in the year 1953, the 3 first appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since the findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE