1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2010 A SHOK KUMAR LALCHAND KANOJIYA ..VS.. TULSIRAM MEWARAM GUPTA Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 2/8/2010 Heard Shri Deshpande, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the property and that the defendant was inducted in the two rooms in the suit property as a Watchman. The plaintiff pleaded that he had asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises and since the defendant refused to vacate the same, the suit for possession and damages was filed. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the year 1997. The defendant pleaded that he had paid certain amount to Ekta Cooperative Society towards the purchase of the suit property and the society had delivered the possession of the property to the defendant. The defendant alternatively claimed that he had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Both the courts on an appreciation of the evidence held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the plot no.128 - the suit property, as he had purchased the same from Ekta Cooperative Society in the year 1984 by a registered sale deed. The plaintiff had filed a photo 2 copy of the registered sale deed before the court and had produced the original before the court at the time of tendering the evidence. The plaintiff had also produced certain documents on record to show that he had paid the non agricultural land tax on the said property. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as Watchman in the said premises. The first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court in this regard. However, both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff had proved his ownership over the suit property by a registered sale deed executed in his favour by Ekta Cooperative Society in the year 1984. The courts held that the defendant had not produced any title deed on record to show that he was the owner of the suit property. The courts also held that the defendant had failed to prove the ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. Both the courts therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a grant of declaration of his ownership and was entitled to the possession of the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.