IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2008 ANANTA CHANDRAKANT BHONSULE (EXPIRED) THROUGH LR'S ... Appellants Versus SHRI. TRIVIKRAM ATMARAM KHORJUENKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondents Mr. J. E. Coleho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somnath Karpe, Advocate for the AppellantS. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Vaidhya, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 ORAL ORDER Heard. 2. The learned Senior Advocate argues that the issue of ownership has been decided only because of alleged admission of the appellants-defendants and he further states that, in the process, a finding on mundkarial rights has also been given though the dispute is pending before competent forum. According to him, the Decree for eviction could not have been sustained till the mundkarial rights were finally adjudicated upon. He has invited attention to the plaint to point out how the plaintiff has pleaded his case and also to show the stand in the written statement. He argues that said stand in the written statement nowhere admits title of the plaintiffs and, on the contrary, the defendant has claimed ownership in herself. In these circumstances, the decision only on the basis of alleged admission is incorrect. 3. The Courts below have concurrently found against the defendant. The defendant claimed to be owner of the structure in the written statement and also contended that after the death of Atmaram, it was inherited by her mother Sakhu and after Sakhu, it was inherited by herself. The Courts have found this position incorrect and there is a finding that defendant no.2 is not the daughter of Sakhu. The amendment sought to be made in the written statement at appellate stage to take up the plea of mundkar has been found to be too vague and, therefore, disbelieved. In these circumstances, the case of the plaintiffs has been looked into. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners of half of the house constructed by one Atmaram and, in other half, one Sakhu was residing as Licensee of said Atmaram. As plaintiffs were away, they permitted Sakhu to occupy other part also as Licensee. This story is accepted by both the Courts below. The fact that the plaintiffs are owners, has not been specifically denied by the defendants. 4. In this background, the title of the plaintiffs has been accepted. The observation of lower Appellate Court that plaintiffs cannot be declared as owners of suit house, is with reference to sale deed which has been executed in their favour by one Jairam and needs to be understood only to that extent and in that light. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, I find that there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by any of the Courts. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*