1 (SA 44 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2011 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Bhimrao Tatoba Kashid and Ors. ...Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.440 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1795 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2010 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Smt.Shakuntalabai Anand Kashid ...Respondent WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1796 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2010 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Maruti Tatoba Kashid ...Respondent 2 (SA 44 of 2011) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1797 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2010 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Ganpati Dhondiba Kashid ...Respondent SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1793OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2010 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Smt.Shakuntala Tanaji Yadav ...Respondent SECOND APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1794 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2010 Smt. Fulabai Baburao Shinde and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Kisan Ramchandra Kashid ...Respondent 3 (SA 44 of 2011) ----- Ms.A.R.S. Baxi for Appellants Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1st April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Respondents. 2. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the Original Defendants (for the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiffs and the Defendants”). The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants for possession in respect of the area which is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The Plaintiffs claimed possession of the open plot of the land after removal of the structure which was constructed on the said land and also recovery of arrears of rent. The Defendants filed their written statement and contended that the suit property did not belong to Pandurang Bala Yadav as alleged. It was contended in paragraph 4 of the written statement that gat no.928 was initially owned by Pandurang Bala Yadav and that about 67 years ago, the open land was given free of cost to the Defendants. It was also alleged that according to the market value as of that date, the cost of the land was at the highest Rs.50/-. It was 4 (SA 44 of 2011) further contended that the Defendants had constructed their houses on the said land 67 years ago and are residing as owners of the said property since last 67 years. 3. The Plaintiffs did not examine themselves. However, they examined the power of attorney, who was husband of one of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants also examined their witness to reiterate what was pleaded in the written statement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants had admitted in the written statement and in the deposition of their witnesses that the suit property belonged to Pandurang Bala Yadav. It was further submitted that the Defendants produced the tax receipts in respect of the premises which were constructed by them on the suit land. It was submitted that the tax receipts did not establish that they are the owners of the suit property. It was submitted that both the Courts below had ignored the admissions which were given by the Defendants and the had wrongly relied on the tax receipts which were produced by them. 5 (SA 44 of 2011) 5. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants cannot be accepted. The Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to establish that the said land was given on rent to the Defendants at the rate of Rs.10/- p.m. The Plaintiffs have also not established that the premises were constructed by the Plaintiffs. No evidence had brought on record to show that the property was given on rent at the rate of Rs.10/- p.m. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants have admitted the claim of the Plaintiffs also cannot be accepted. The Defendants have came out with the specific case that the land was given to them free of cost in 1933 and, thereafter, they were constructed the premises on the said land. This defence of the Defendants cannot be said to be an admission as alleged by the Plaintiffs. It is well settled position in law that the case of the Plaintiffs must stand on its own strength and not on the weakness of the Defendants' case. The burden of establishing that the property was given on rent at the rate of 10/- p.m. and that the Defendants had not paid the said rent, was entirely on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have not discharged the said burden. Both the Courts below had rightly held that the Plaintiffs have not established their 6 (SA 44 of 2011) case. No substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeals. Hence. Second Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)