1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2004 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Kadukar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. V.A. NAIK, J. 02ND MARCH, 2007 Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for a declaration that they are the owners of the property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Alternatively, the plaintiffs also claimed the demolition of the structure constructed by the defendant No.1 on the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the originally the suit property was owned by one Walter. Walter had two sisters by name Irene and Mrs. Vegas. The plaintiffs claimed that the father of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from Irene by registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.1967. According to the plaintiffs, the owner 2 of the property i.e. Walter had bequeathed the property in favour of Irene and, therefore, Irene had valid title to the property which was transferred to the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the defendant No.1 had illegally transferred the suit premises in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 3(A) on 11.01.1983. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Irene had no title to the suit property and after the death of Walter, the property fell to the share of both, Irene and Mrs. Vegas. It was pleaded by the defendants that the property was purchased by the defendant No.1 from the son of Mrs. Vegas, by name, George on 17.11.1977. The defendants, therefore, claimed valid title to the suit property. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and held that the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property. The mutation entry right from the year 1967 showed that the plaintiffs predecessor in title and thereafter the plaintiffs were shown to be the owners of the suit property. The learned trial Court further held that the original owner of the property by name Walter had bequeathed the suit property to his sister Irene by a Will executed by Walter. The learned trial Court further considered the facts that the sale deed was executed in 3 favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs in the year 1967 and there was ample evidence on record to show that at the relevant time when the plaintiffs predecessor in title purchased the property from Irene, the mutation entries showed that the property was standing in the name of Irene as the owner thereof. Thus, according to the learned trial Court, the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs after making due and necessary enquiry and the plaintiffs had proved their ownership over the suit property in view of the registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.1967. The Court, further, held that Irene had valid title to the suit property which she could pass to the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the learned trial Court granted a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and were also entitled to possession of the suit property and the defendants were in occupation of the suit property without any title and right to hold the same. The trial Court, therefore, directed the defendants to remove the encroachment on the suit property and handover the suit property to the plaintiffs. In an appeal filed by the defendants, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was confirmed. On perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it is revealed that both the 4 Courts have considered the entire evidence on record and have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and the defendants had encroached upon the suit property. The findings of facts recorded by both the Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Courts, therefore, do not give rise to any substantial question of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.