1 54-191-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj SECOND APPEAL NO.191 OF 2008 Ismile I. Khan .. Appellant V/s. Abubakar Y. Khan & Ors., .. Respondents. Mr. R.P.Behere, for Appellant. Mr. S.G.Karandikar, for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED:- 13th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C. 1 By way of present appeal, Appellant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division at Deorukh, Dist, Ratnagiri, dated 23rd June, 2005 thereby dismissing the Civil Suit No.20 of 1997 and Judgment and decree dated 5th December, 2007 passed by the Learned District Judge at Ratnagiri thereby dismissing the Civil Appeal No.66 of 2005. 2 54-191-08.sxw 2 The Appellant had filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and for removal of encroachment made by Defendant No.1 and his father and for restraining Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from disturbing his possession over the suit property. Shri Behere, on behalf of Appellant submits that from the perusal of both the orders, it is clear that the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the Defendant had not lead any oral evidence and in spite of this fact, have decreed the suit and dismissed the Appeal. He, therefore,submits that substantial question of law as to whether the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure have been followed or not arises for consideration in the present appeal. He, further submits that the mutation entry and revenue records which is of 60 years old, which ought to have been considered by the Courts below, has not been considered. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposed the application. 3 The courts below upon consideration of the evidence, have found that the Appellant has failed to prove that he has title over the property and that the 3 54-191-08.sxw Defendants have made encroachment on the property owned by the Plaintiff. It is for the Plaintiff to prove his case by leading the evidence. The case of the Plaintiff will stand or fall, on his own evidence. Merely because the Defendants have not lead the oral evidence, cannot be reason to decree the suit of the Plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the Plaintiff regarding order 18 Rule 4 is without substance. 4 In so far as mutation entries are concerned, it is settled law that the entries on the revenue records do not bestow any title on the properties. In view of concurrent findings that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the properties and not noticing any perversity therein, the Appeal is dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J.)