1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 563/2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande, J . Dated : September 28, 2006 Heard Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38/2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 10th March, 2005 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Bhandara in Regular Civil Suit No.28/1994. The above suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the land and for declaration and injunction. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court partly decreed the 2 suit. The trial Court directed the defendant to handover vacant possession of 7 R land of Gat No.420/1 shown by green colour in the map (Ex.93) and further directed enquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against the said decree, the defendant preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Mr. Choudhari submitted that both the Courts below erred in relying upon the revenue records to establish the possession in favour of the plaintiff. According to learned counsel, the plaintiff having not established his title over the encroached portion of the land, suit for recovery of possession ought to have been dismissed. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar (2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 277). Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the records, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Choudhari. Both the 3 Courts, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, have come to the conclusion that there is an encroachment to the extent of 7 R in respect of the suit property which was in possession of the plaintiff. No doubt, the revenue records do not confer title as has been held in Shrikant's case (supra). However, the fact remains that the revenue records clearly establish the possession of the person whose name is entered into revenue records, unless the same is displaced by giving evidence by the opposite party under section 110 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that the person in possession is owner thereof unless the person who affirms that he is not the owner, proves to the contrary. In the present case, the defendant has not led any evidence to prove his title to the encroached portion. That being the position I am of the opinion that ratio laid down in Shrikant's case (supra) is clearly not applicable in the present case. In my opinion, the findings 4 recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence on record and since there are concurrent findings of fact, no interference is called for in the absence of any perversity. In any event, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. C.A. No. 6033/06 and 6034/06 In view of dismissal of second appeal, nothing survives in the civil applications. Hence, the civil applications are dismissed as infructuous. JUDGE A.