1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.71 OF 2008. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Shendurnikar, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.03.2011. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for possession claiming that the present Respondent is a licensee. The appellant claimed himself to be exclusive owner of the property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff being aggrieved thereby has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Sant, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below have not properly considered provisions of the Easement Act, 2 inasmuch as the license was properly terminated. According to the learned counsel, other brothers have not disputed the ownership of the present appellant and as such Respondent does not have any right or authority to dispute the same. The Courts below on erroneous premise has negatived the contention of the appellant. The trial Court in fact, had decided title in favour of the appellant and the lower appellate Court has set aside the same without even filing cross-objection. 3. Per contra, Mr.Shendurnikar, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Court below has properly held the appellant- Respondent to be the co-owner. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that Ganeshlal is the original owner and the present Respondent is the grand son of Ganeshlal and the plaintiff is the uncle of the defendant. In that light of the matter, the Court below was right in concluding that the defendant is a co-owner and so no decree for possession could have been passed. The learned counsel further contended that for assailing a finding of a 3 particular issue, there is no necessity to file a cross-objection in view of Order 41 Rule 22 read with Rule 33 of the C.P.C. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. It is not disputed that Ganeshlal was the original owner of the property. He was survived by four sons. The plaintiff is one of the said four sons. So also the defendants are sons of Babulal, the another son of Ganeshlal. The plaintiff could not show his exclusive title over the property. The plaintiff could not prove that the said property was allotted to him in partition nor any document of conveyance of whatsoever nature in favour of the plaintiff. In absence of the same, the plaintiff can not be held to be exclusive owner simply on the basis of entry in Municipal or revenue record. It is also a trite law that a finding on an issue can be assailed without filing a cross-objection, in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the C.P.C. 5. In that light of the matter, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question 4 of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.22.03.2011. asp/office/sa71.08