1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. S.A.NO.20 OF 2009 Smt.Pushpabai Bhaskarrao Gundarwar and ors. .. vs..State of Mah. and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 12th August 2009. 1. Heard Mr.V.N.Morande, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.S.Dhote, learned AGP for the State. 2. This is a second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and confirmed by the District judge. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He instituted a suit for possession, declaration and damages. It is his case that he was in possession of the suit property i.e. land admeasuring 60,000 sq.meters out of survey No.12/2 and 13. He had constructed a godown thereon. The said godown was let out by him to the Government of Maharashtra. The 2 Government of Maharashtra used the said godown for quite some time and even paid rent to the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the land was recognized by the Collector to be that of the plaintiff by letter dated 5/12/1972 on payment of Rs.4000/-. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the defendants have forcibly demolished the godown standing on the said plot and they have dispossessed the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, sought possession and injunction in respect of the disputed land. 4. The defendant/State contended that the suit land does not belong to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had made encroachment thereon. 5. The learned judge of the trial court found that the plaintiff was an encroacher. He was not a lessee of the land nor he has purchased he same and land belongs to the Government. Holding so, the learned judge of the trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also came to be dismissed and the findings of the trial court were confirmed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant urges before me that best evidence that was available was with the defendant and it had not produced said evidence. He submits 3 that if that evidence would have been produced that would have been enough to show the ownership of the plaintiff or lease in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The courts below have found that the plaintiff has not been able to show that there was any lease in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also not produced the document showing that he has paid sum of Rs.4000/- towards purchase of the suit site. The burden of proof in fact lies on the plaintiff to show that he has paid the price and has become the owner thereof. The plaintiff does not dispute that the defendant is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs claim to have acquired the title from the government. It is, therefore, for the plaintiff to show that as to in what manner he had acquired the title and he must produce those documents to show his title. Such documents have not been placed on record. Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute