1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.949 OF 2006. Gangadhar S/o Laxman Sawant and others ... Appellants. Versus Madhav S/o Ramrao Somwanshi and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Amit Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.V.Thombre, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The appellants are the original defendants. The Respondents filed suit for possession in respect of land bearing S.No.9/AA 2 admeasuring 17 acres 23 gunthas. It is case of the plaintiffs that Ramrao is the original owner of S.No.9 and Laxman was owner of S.No.10. In the year 1962, Ramrao had filed a suit against Laxman for possession. The same was decreed but thereafter because of the new relationship between the parties i.e. the sister of the plaintiff was given to Laxman in marriage. Therefore, no execution of the decree was effectuated and possession was given by Laxman amicably. Thereafter, in 1964 as the plaintiffs were in need of money, they took Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) from Laxman and put Laxman in possession of the property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had gone to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to Laxman with a request to deliver the possession of the suit property. As Laxman denied, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession. 2. It is the case of defendants that in fact, S.No.9 and S.No.10 both the properties were purchased by Ramrao and Laxman jointly and both have half share in each land. Both the Courts 3 disbelieved the contention of the defendants and decreed the suit. 3. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the entries in 7/12 extract coupled with the sale deed of the year 1992 executed by Madhav Ramrao in favour of Tanaji from S.No.10 fortifies the case of the defendants that both survey numbers i.e. S.No.9 and S.No.10 were purchased jointly. According to him, just because the said sale deed was produced at the late stage and no evidence was led, the defendants' case should not be disbelieved. On the contrary, he states that opportunity deserves to be given to the defendants. 4. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel further submits that even the PW 1 has given admission in evidence that S.Nos.9 and 10 are jointly purchased. In view of this admission, the Court ought not to have believed the case of the plaintiffs. According to learned counsel, the document i.e. alleged Kararnama which is relied upon for the source of possession ought to be 4 relied upon in its totality otherwise ought not to have been relied at all. 5. Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the judgments contending that the title documents stand in favour of the plaintiffs. There are concurrent findings of facts and no perversity appears in the appreciation of the evidence. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is clear that title document of S.No.9 stood exclusively in the name of Ramrao. The presumption would be that the person in whose name the title document stands is the owner of the property. Heavy burden would lie upon the party contending that it is a joint purchase to prove the same. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate this fact. Even the document i.e. the alleged sale-deed which is said to have been executed by Madhav from S.No.10 is not proved. No evidence is led on the said document. 5 7. Moreover, even it has been observed by the Court below that in the Khasara-Pahani, the name of Laxman was struck down as a owner for S.No.9 and that of Ramrao from S.No.10. Even the admission which the learned counsel for the defendants has placed his reliance is not the candid admission but the trial Court in para 20 has observed as under : "20. In cross-examination P.W.NO.1 deposed that Ramrao Somwanshi and Yeshodabai had purchased S.Nos.9 and 10. Advocate for the contested defendants argued that evidence of P.W.No.1 shows that Ramrao and Yeshodabai had purchased S.No.9 and 10. Advocate for the plaintiffs argued that is not helpful to defendants. There is merit in argument of Advocate for the plaintiffs as sale deed of S.No.10 is not produced and who is Yeshodabai, of Laxman is not shown." 6 The said statement goes to show that P.W.1 has stated that Ramrao and Yeshodabai had purchased S.Nos.9 and 10. 8. In view of the concurrent findings of facts and in light of the fact that the view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. No case for interference is made out. No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa949.06 7