1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the appellant. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 16/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit property inherited the same from his great grand father. The defendants father Bapu Hassan Patel did not have any right, title and interest in the suit property, but illegally got his name entered in the revenue record. The Trial Court after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, partly decreed the Suit to the extent of relief of injunction holding that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit property, but dismissed the Suit for the relief of declaration of ownership on the ground that the 2 plaintiff could not prove his exclusive ownership over the suit property. 3. The plaintiff has filed Appeal before the District Court to the extent of non grant of relief of declaration of ownership. Defendant no. 1 filed cross objection. The District Court dismissed the Appeal and the cross objection. During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant no. 2 relinquished his right in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The appellant/original plaintiff has assailed the Judgment of the lower appellate Court in the present Second Appeal. Mr. Katneshwarkar , the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that there is no dispute as far as the ownership of the appellant is concerned. When the defendant claimed that he is co-sharer and also owner of the suit property, then heavy burden lay upon him to prove the same. According to Mr. Katneshwarkar, mere entry in the revenue record, which is meant only for fiscal purpose, can not prove the ownership. Except the said revenue record, there is nothing to show that the predecessor in title of the defendants at any material point of time were owners of the suit property. The learned counsel further submits that the lower appellate Court has wrongly relied on the statement made before the revenue authority. 5. The Courts below have discussed the oral and documentary evidence, so also, the admissions 3 given by the plaintiff in his cross examination. Right since 1952, the name of the father of defendant was appearing in the ownership column. No steps were taken either by the plaintiff or his father as against the said entry. It is not disputed that the defendants and plaintiff as cousins. Even the plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that the suit property was owned by his great grand father and the brother of his great grand father. In view of these aspects, the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove his exclusive ownership over the suit property. 6. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. In light of the same, no error is found in the Judgment passed by the Courts below. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 151.10