( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.237/2004 Smt.Mainabai Kesar (Dead) Through Lr's Smt. Leela Rangbhal and anor... -vs- Vinayak Band (Dead) Through Lr's Smt. Venutai Band and ors... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17/06/2008 Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property admeasuring 66 x 11 sq.ft. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and the defendant was illegally trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased suit property from one Kashibai by the registered sale deed dated 20/06/1968. ( 2 ) The claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. It was the case of the defendant that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and the suit property was her ancestral property. It was further pleaded by the defendant in the alternate that Smt.Kashibai, from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit property, was not the absolute owner of the property and she could not have sold the same to the plaintiff, as her son and daughter also had a joint share in the suit property. The trial court framed the necessary issues and after consideration of the same, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the title over the suit land, shown in the plaint map. The court further held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the succession over the suit property and the defendant had failed to prove that the well and the toilet were not situated in the disputed property, but were situated in the land owned by the defendant. The plea of adverse possession as raised by the defendant was also negatived by the trial court. Consequently the trial court granted a declaration and permanent injunction, as prayed by the plaintiff. ( 3 ) In the Appellate Court the plaintiff produced certain documents which included a report made by Taluka Inspector of Land Records. The First Appellate Court considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties on record, as also the evidenciary value and the correctness of the additional documents produced by the defendant before the First Appellate Court before dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant. The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court, so far as, it denied the claim of ownership of the defendant over the suit property either in her own right or by acquisition of the same by adverse possession. The First Appellate Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the property was purchased by him from Kashibai, who was the original owner. The First Appellate Court had considered the report of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, which was produced by the defendant before the Appellate Court. However, the court doubted the correctness of the same, as the same was not proved. The First Appellate Court further observed that the inference drawn by the T.I.L.R. cannot be treated as evidence, ( 4 ) muchless conclusive evidence. In fact, according to the First Appellate Court, the inference drawn by the T.I.L.R. supported the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the site admeasuring 66 x 11 sq.ft. from Kashibai. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE gsk