1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.370/2010 Maroti Balaji Khobragade & ors ..vs.. Motiram Chaple & anor Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 24 /9 / 2010 Heard Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by plaintiffs/ respondents for possession and for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs pleaded that the property belonged to the father of the plaintiffs by name Penta and after his death they became the owner of the suit property. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises in spite of issuance of the notice by plaintiffs terminating his tenancy, the suit was instituted. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit house and pleaded that one Harishchandra Ramteke was the owner of the suit property. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs did not have any right to file the suit and there was no question of payment of any rent to the plaintiffs. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had proved that they were the lawful owners of the properties and the defendant was the tenant in the suit property. The courts held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an amount of Rs.3375/- towards arrears of 2 rent. The courts held that the plaintiffs were also entitled to a decree of eviction and possession. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The courts considered the documents at Exhibit 32 to 34 which clearly showed the name of Penta - the father of the plaintiffs as owner of the suit property. The courts held that the 7/12 extract produced by the defendant on record to show that Harishandra Ramteke was the owner of the property, was not sufficient to prove the ownership of Harishchandra Ramteke. The findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.