1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 382/2006 (Eknath Wasudeorao Saraf Vs. Fulchand Gomaji Chawahan) with SECOND APPEAL NO. 383/2006 (Eknath Wasudeorao Saraf Vs. Balu (Dinesh) Laxmanrao Dinde) with SECOND APPEAL NO. 64/2007 (Eknath Wasudeorao Saraf Vs. Ramlu Komarayya Chimmavena) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.T. Bhoskar, Adv. for the appellant. Mrs. Joshi h/f Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. For R-Balu. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 12 th JUNE, 2008. Since somewhat similar facts arise for consideration in these three second appeals and since the appellant in these second appeal is same, these appeals are heard for admission and are disposed of by the common order. The appellant is the original plaintiff. Plaintiff had preferred three separate civil suits against the respondents in these three appeals, for declaration, possession and damages. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had no right, title and interest over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit land belonged to his father who was a Malgujar. Some time in the year 1949, on the 2 abolition of the Malgujari, the father of the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property. A registered Patta was executed in the name of the mother of the planitiff in the year 1949 and the mother of the plaintiff was acting as a natural guardian of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the name of the plaintiff came to be recored in the revenue records by deleting the name of the mother of the plaintiff. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in or about the year 1981 to 1984, the defendants encroached upon the suit plots belonging to the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, suit for possession was filed in the year 1989 in the case of defendant Fulchand and Balu, and in the year 1991 in the case of Ramlu. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff by filing the written statements. Defendant Ramlu, however, did not contest the suit thereafter. Defendants Balu and Fulchand, however, contested the claim of the plaintiff and tendered oral and documentary evidence on record. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit properties and was therefore, not entitled to seek reliefs as sought in the suit. The trial Court, after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff had failed to 3 prove that he was the owner of the suit properties. The suits filed by the plaintiff were, therefore, dismissed. In appeals preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment passed by the trial Court, first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts are challenged in the instant second appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Courts failed to give due weightage to the Patta executed in the year 1949, the 7/12 extract, order of the Tahsildar and the map produced by the plaintiff on record. The counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court page 1178 to canvass that the khasra entries can be considered for declaring the ownership of a party over a particular property. Mrs. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent in Second Appeal No. 382/2006 and 383/2006, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts and submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and hence do not give rise to any substantial question of law. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the plaintiff had failed to produce any document of title to prove his ownership and in this view of the matter, the Courts were justified in denying the 4 claim of the plaintiff. I have perused both the judgments passed by the trial as well as appellate Courts. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the suit property. The Courts were justified in holding that the entries in 7/12 extract had only presumptive value as such entries are usually made for fiscal purpose. Hence the judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 1178 would not be of any assistance to the case of the plaintiff as the 7/12 extracts were considered in the reported decision to record a finding of possession in favour of the party and not a finding of an ownership as is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff. According to both the Courts, the plaintiff had failed to establish the source as well as origin of his right over the suit property as there was nothing produced by the plaintiff on record to prove that his father was a Malgujar and the owner of the property in question. The Courts further observed and rightly so that the plaintiff could not be said to have had good title to the suit property merely because a Patta was executed in his favour and the Courts were further right in observing that though the encroachments were alleged to have been made by the defendants much earlier, the suits came to be filed very belatedly. The Courts considered the tax receipts 5 and the other evidence produced by the defendants on record to hold that the defendants were in possession of the property since 1975 and 1978. The Courts also laid reliance on the admission of the plaintiff that he had filed as many as 100 suits against various persons claiming possession against them. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeals are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP