1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 347/2005 (Shriram Namdeo Savle & 8 others VERSUS Radhabai Tonde (Dead) Thr. LR's 1(A) Sudha Naayan Tonde & 5 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri A.S. Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 7, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were the tenants in the suit property and the husband of the defendant no.1 and the father of the defendant no.2 had entered into the tenancy agreement with the plaintiff in the year 1972. Since the defendants were in arrears of rent from March-1993 to January-1996 to the tune of Rs.625/-, the plaintiffs issued a quit notice to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 16.01.1995. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendants were, in 2 fact, the owners of the suit property. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property. The defendants denied the execution of the rent note by the father of the defendant no.2 in favour of Ramrao and Namdeo in the year 1972. The defendants further denied that they were the tenants in the suit property. They sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that they are the owners of the suit property and that the defendants are the tenants in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.15/-. The Court further held that the plaintiffs had validly terminated the tenancy of the defendants by the notice dated 16.01.1995. The Court, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In an appeal filed by the defendants, the findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed. The first appellate Court reappreciated the evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership over the suit property and the defendants had succeeded in proving that they were not the tenants in the suit property. While 3 reappreciating the evidence, the first appellate Court considered the oral evidence tendered by the defendants as also the fact that the father of the defendant no.2 was paying the taxes since a long time. The appellate Court also considered the demand bill in the name of defendant no.2 at Exh.133, the Sanad Exh.134 and the extracts of form No.8A at Exhs.135 to 141. The appellate Court also considered other demand bills and the receipts of payment of taxes at Exhs.142 to 147. The first appellate Court weighed this evidence along with the other evidence tendered by the plaintiffs in the form of documents Namuna No.1 at Exh. 36 and 37 to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE