1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.307/2007 Amari vs Khana Date of order : 4.12.2007. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RK Soni, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below with respect to possession of the property, which according to courts below was with the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below observed that the defendant- appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to rebut the plaintiff's Patta which was issued in favour of plaintiff's father's name Raymal and thereby the courts below ignored the oral evidence produced by the defendant-appellant. It is also submitted that the defendant's witnesses only stated that at present defendant is not in possession of the property as some portion of the land was sold out. In view of the above, the finding of the courts below 2 is absolutely illegal. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. So far as title deed is concerned, the trial court also very clearly observed that plaintiff produced the Patta Ex.1, which was in the name of plaintiff's father. That Patta is not under challenge and therefore, only on the basis of Patta if the courts below held that plaintiff is the owner of the property being successor of Raymal, the courts below have not committed any error of fact and law. So far as that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the Patta is concerned, that also cannot be questioned as the defendant has not produced any documentary evidence. Therefore, the observation of the courts below cannot be questioned. So far as oral evidence is concerned, in view of the documentary evidence that too,a title deed if the oral evidence was not accepted by the courts below, the courts below have not committed any error of fact and law. So far as possession is concerned, the defendant's own witnesses DW-2 and DW- 3 in fact admitted the possession of the plaintiff and unequivocally stated that at present possession of the property is with the Raymal. 3 In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-