IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 653 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1681 OF 2008 Ashok S. Kerurkar ... Appellant Vs Shantappa R. Kerurkar ... Respondent Mr. A. B. Tajane, for the Appellant. Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar, for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2009. P.C.: ---- . The present second appeal is filed by a son against his father in whose favour suit for possession has been decreed. The decree passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. It is undisputed that plot of land came to be purchased in the name of the respondent/father for a consideration of Rs. 5,130/-. The plot of land which is subject matter of the suit was purchased by the respondent/father from the Corporation, being an employee serving in the Corporation. It is not the case of the present appellant that there was any other ancestral properties from the nucleus of which this property could have been purchased. On the contrary, - 2 - it is clearly pleaded by the present appellant that at the time of purchase of property by his father, he made certain contributions and thus, claimed to be a joint purchaser alongwith his father, though the property has been purchased in the name of the father. Both the Courts below havd recorded finding that the appellant has failed to establish that he was financially in sound position to contribute and as a matter of fact contrubuted the purchase money. Rejecting the said contention of defendant, the trial Court passed decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession. According to the plaintiff/father, the defendant/ present appellant was occupying a tenanted premises and as the landlord had evicted the appellant, he approached his father/respondent with a request to permit him to occupy the suit premises for some time. Request was granted by the father and there was permissive occupation of the premises by the appellant. The suit premises comprises of a shade admeasuring 10’ x 10’. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the occupation of the premises by the appellant was permissive and despite demand of the premises by the father, same was not handed over, hence the suit filed by the father is decreed which is based on title. The respondent has established his title to the property. It is also established that being the son, appellant was permitted to occupy the - 3 - premises and hence, the plaintiff has been held to be entitled to possession. Perused impugned judgment. The same does not call for interference. No uestion of law emerges for consideration. Hence, appeal deserves to be dismissed in liminiii. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that his other brother had been paid Rs.80,000/- by the father and he also ought to have been paid sum of Rs.80,000/- by the father. The said payment to the other brother has no bearing on the issue that arises for consideration in this appeal. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has no other place to move out and the appellant should be given reasonable time to make an alternative arrangement for the residence of himself and his family. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of 3 years time to vacate the suit premises. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness does not oppose permitting the appellant to occupy the premises for a period of one year from today, subject to the condition that appellant shall furnish an undertaking in this Court within a period of 4 weeks from today that he shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent. Hence, I pass the following order. - 4 - (i) Appeal is dismissed for the reasons set out hereinabove. (ii) The respondent shall not execute the decree for possession of the suit premises for a period of one year from today, subject to condition that appellant shall furnish an undertaking in this Court that he will hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent, on or before expiry of period of one year from today. (iii) The appellant shall not create any third party interest in the suit property. (iv) In view of dismissal of present second appeal, Civil Application No. 1681 of 2008 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]