1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR S. A. No. 575 OF 2007 Ramjidas Sukhadayal Punjabi & anr. v. Smt. Panchafulabai Gopala Pakhare & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Firdos Mirza advocate for the Appellants. Respondents served. .... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 19 th JUNE, 2009. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and negative answer to the claim of the title made by the appellants is under challenge in the present second appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgment, I find that the courts below rightly found that the claim for title made by the appellants was based on no valid title. Appellants relied on oral partition amongst themselves initially but then the finding of fact is that no specific evidence was led as to 2 the oral partition. Next was an attempt to prove partition by unregistered document of partition. The Courts below found that unregistered document of partition was hit by Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and, therefore, was not admissible in evidence. That apart, there is a further finding of fact recorded by the courts below that the parties to the alleged oral or written partition were all strangers to each other and, therefore, the concept of making oral partition reduced to writing cannot apply to strangers. The appellants then relied on mutation entries in their favour to claim title. But the courts found that mutation entry does not confer title on the parties as in the said legal position. 3. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on in the decision in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & ors. - AIR 1968 SC 1413 and submitted that adverse inference should be drawn if a party has not filed written statement. Nothing turns on that because the courts found 3 that the plaintiffs themselves did not prove their own case but failed in proving their case on all scores. Hence the decision relied on has no applicability. The appeal is devoid of merit. Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. JUDGE /TA/