1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.271 OF 2006 Shri Laxman Mahadev Kansare .... Appellants vs. Shri Ramchandra Mahadev Kansare .... Respondents through legal heirs & LRs. Mr.S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for Appellants Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for respondents no.1(A) to 1(D). Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 8th June 2009 PC : 1. This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and the order dated 4th April 2003 passed by Joint District Judge, Ratnagiri in Civil Appeal No.36 of 1994 filed to challenge correctness and legality of judgment and order dated 2nd April 1994 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Devrukh in Regular Civil Suit No.36 of 1987. 2. The Civil Suit No.36 of 1987 was filed by Laxman against his brother- Ramchandra for partition and possession of properties situate at village Tamhane, Taluka Sangmeshwar. The appellants before the Court are heirs and legal representatives of Laxman and respondents are heirs and legal representatives of Ramchandra. The suit properties consist of 7 landed properties and a house out of which there is already family arrangement and partition in respect of 3 properties. Therefore, they are out of purview of the controversy. As regards the remaining 4 properties, Laxman had contended that they are joint family properties. It was contended by 2 Ramchandra that these properties belong to one Bala, uncle of the brothers. The uncle was a bachelor. He had adopted Ramchandra. Undisputedly all the 4 properties were standing in the name of Bala and on his death in the year 1962, the revenue records were mutated to show Ramchandra as the owner of the properties. Ramchandra had been cultivating the land since the year 1962. The present suit was filed in the year 1987. By the order dated 2nd April 1994, the suit was dismissed holding that Laxman had failed to prove that the suit properties are ancestral properties and liable to be partitioned. The Court also held that Laxman is not entitled to reopen the partition that had taken place and that Ramchandra was the adopted son of Bala. This was challenged by Laxman by filing Civil Appeal No.36 of 1994. The appeal was dismissed upholding findings of the trial Court, as regards nature of the properties and the status of Ramchandra as the son of Bala. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings as regards the status of Ramchandra given by both the courts below is perverse and cannot be sustained, since there was no evidence whatsoever brought before the Court in support of the same. He submits that Ramchandra did not examine himself during the trial nor brought any other evidence of adoption before the Court. He submits that reliance of the Court on the revenue records alone which are not documents of title, is incorrect. It is undisputed that the uncle Bala died in the year 1962 and since that time the revenue records have shown the name of Ramchandra as 3 his heir and legal representative. There is no doubt that the revenue records are not documents of title. However, the revenue record which has been so standing over a long period of time must be given it’s due value. In the instant case, the suit was filed in the year 1987 i.e. about 25 years after the death of uncle Bala and the change in the revenue records. There is no worthwhile explanation coming forth from the appellants for this lack of action on the part of Laxman, except saying that Laxman was employed at Bombay and was in belief that the property in dispute was being cultivated by Ramchandra on behalf of both the brothers. Laxman has not brought any evidence before the Court in support of such belief. It is not his claim that over this long period of time, there was any share of the agricultural produce from the properties as any other act on his part to indicate his joint ownership. In that circumstance, in my opinion, the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below cannot be faulted with. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J.)