1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.548/2010 KUSUM BOBADE ..VS.. MAROTI CHANDEKAR 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: 10 /12 / 2010 Heard Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent for ejectment, possession and directing the appellant/ defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit house. According to the plaintiff one Prabhakar Ware was the owner of the property and the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Prabhakar's son – Sudhakar after the death of Prabhakar. The plaintiff pleaded that he became the owner of the suit property in pursuance of the registered sale deed dated 20.4.1992. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant was residing in the suit premises as a tenant and after the issuance of a notice terminating her tenancy his possession over the property was that of a trespasser. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that she was residing in the suit house since 1982 and since she was taking care of Prabhakar, Prabhakar had gifted the suit house to the defendant by an oral gift. She claimed ownership over the suit property in view of the oral gift and also by adverse possession. Both the courts held that the plaintiff had proved his ownership, over, the suit property as the sale deed dated 20.6.1992 was not challenged by anybody or for that matter, the daughter of Prabhakar by name Lilabai. The courts held that the plaintiff had 2 proved his title to the suit property and he was entitled to possession of the same. Though the trial court held that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property, the first appellate court held that the possession of the defendant over the suit property was permissive and the plaintiff could have obtained possession from the defendant at any time. Both the courts held that the defendant failed to prove that she was the owner of the suit property as the property could not have been transferred by the oral gift and the defendant had also not led any evidence to show her adverse possession over the suit property. Since the plaintiff had proved his title over the property and the defendant had failed to prove her title to the same, the first appellate court rightly confirmed the decree of eviction and possession. The findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP