1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD S.A. NO.1605/2005 WITH C.A. NO. 10564/2006 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. A.K. Gugle h/f Mr. J.G. Toshniwal, Advocate for appellants. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] Date : 7th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard the counsel extensively. 2 Concurrent findings recorded against the defendant are questioned in the second appeal. The controversy revolved to area 20’x20’ which both courts directed the defendant to vacate. 3 Though several contentions were raised by the learned counsel for appellants including nexus of the appellant flowing from Syed Abdulla or 2 Syed Abdulla to be son of Murtuza @ Syed Nabi. However, in the present controversy, fact remains, the appellant did not produce any document to show right in suit property to a particular area of 20’x20’. 4 Though reference is given to 7/12 extract at Ex. 36 having mutation dated 10th October, 1971 being mutation entry no. 1606, however, it will not be useful to coin for staking claim to the area in the suit property. The courts have also observed that the appellants have never paid Municipal taxes in relation to the suit property. There was no exercise made by appellants to get their names mutated concerning suit property. The nature of the property indicate, defendant could not hold title document and consequently, the basic ownership of the plaintiff having been established, the evidence of the appellants or wittiness Sk. Mehboob could not accelerate the 3 case to stake to remain in possession of the disputed portion of the land. 5 The appellants are at liberty to take recourse for staking claim as successor to either Syed Abdulla or Syed Nabi @ Murtuza. However, in the present proceeding, they have miserably failed to establish any nexus to the suit property and consequently Courts were justified in decreeing the suit. No merit. Second appeal with civil application dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa1605.05