1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2008 Suresh Vishnu Gurav .. Appellant V/s. Hanuman Mandir Teli & Vishnawani Samaj, Through its Chairman Mr.Arvind Parshuram Kolvankar .. Respondent Mr.Nitin Mulye for the Appellant. Ms. Gauri Godse for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 22ND, 2008. P.C.:- This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 2007 passed by learned Ad-Hoc Judge, 2nd 2 Raigad by which the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. 2. The Appellant herein is the original Defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2000 filed by the Respondent which is an unregistered trust. The said suit was filed for securing the vacant possession of the land on which the structure has been erected by the Appellant herein and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages. 3. The land in question is City Survey No.609 which is within the area of Gram Panchayat Nijampur and owned by the Respondent No.1 Trust. The Appellant herein was issued a notice by the Respondent No.1 Trust on 29th April, 2000 as he failed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.720/- as agreed. By the said notice dated 29th April, 2000, the tenancy of the Appellant was terminated from 31st May, 2000 and he was asked to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question. On failure of the Appellant in doing so, the Respondent No.1 filed the said suit for possession. 3 4. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that was adduced by the Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff, namely, the evidence of the adjoining shop owners who were paying rent to the Respondent No.1 Trust, a Sanad issued by the D.I.L.R., Raigad, in favour of the Respondent No.1, the No Objection Certificate sought by the Appellant from the Respondent No.1 for constructing the shop in question and register for the years from 1992 to 1997, wherein there were entries pertaining to payment of rent by the Appellant, came to a conclusion that the notice dated 29th April, 2000 was justified. The Trial Court therefore decreed the suit and directed that the possession of the premises in question be handed over to the Respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of the said order. The Trial Court further directed the payment of an amount of Rs.2,160/- towards the arrears of rent and the payment of Rs.60/- per month as damages, from the date of suit till delivery of possession. 5. Aggrieved by the said decree dated 4th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangaon, the 4 Defendant that is the Appellant herein filed Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by the Judgment and decree dated 2nd July, 2007 and the findings recorded by the Trial Court resultantly came to be confirmed. 6. On behalf of the Appellant, it is sought to be contended that there was absolutely no material on record on which the Appellant could base his title and only document on record is the Sanad in favour of the Appellant. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1939, Bombay Page 425 in the matter of Narbheramji Gyaniramji Ramsnehi V/s. Vivekramji Bhagatramji Ramsnehi, in support of his submission that a Sanad cannot be called a Document of Title. It is further contended that mere applying for No Objection Certificate would not confirm title on the Respondent No.1 herein. In my view, the reliance of the Appellant on the said Judgment is misplaced. No doubt, the Division Bench of this Court in the said Judgment has observed that a Sanad granted under the Provisions of 5 the Land Revenue Code could not be strictly speaking in the nature of Document of Title between the litigating parties, however, the said observations of a Division Bench was in the context of the other party in that proceeding having a Conveyance in his favour, such is not the case here. In the instant case, apart from the Sanad in favour of the Respondent No.1, the Appellant by his conduct has accepted the ownership of the Respondent No.1. 7. In my view, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant questioning the title of the Respondent No.1 is without any merit. It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant has propounded three theories as observed by the Lower Appellate Court. Firstly, he has denied the ownership of the Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff over the suit property, secondly he claims ownership by adverse possession, and, thirdly, according to him, the Group Gram Panchayat, Nijampur, is the owner of the property, as has been observed by both the Courts below there was no merit in any of the three theories. 6 8. Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact on the basis of the material that was adduced by the parties. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 9. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 10 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No. 671 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J.]