1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2007 Gangubai Dattatraya Shinde .. APPELLANT VERSUS Balu s/o Babu Shinde & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Fatima Kazi holding for Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd September 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff claims that the house property which is subject matter of the suit belongs to her husband and defendants were inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.50/- in the year 1985. It is her contention that upto August 1988 defendants paid rent, however, thereafter they avoided to pay rent. She has also stated that the defendants have caused damage to one wall of the suit house. Plaintiff claims possession of the suit house as well as 2 recovery of arrears of rent amount. 3 Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to them, suit property is ancestral property belonging to the joint family of defendants and husband of the plaintiff. There was partition of agricultural as well as house property. Defendants denied that they have been inducted as tenants. As such, defendants pray for dismissal of the suit. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish her case as regards defendants being tenants in occupation of the suit house and as such dismissed the suit. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal no. 198/1996 which came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Shrirampur who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dt. 29-3-2001. 5 I have perused judgments recorded by both the courts below. Defendants have established that the property involved in dispute is ancestral property and that it was recorded in the name of husband of the plaintiff. There was partition of the agricultural property as well as house 3 property. However, although there was division of the suit house, the property remained mutated in the name of husband of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has infact admitted ancestral nature of the suit house. Thus, plaintiff has miserably failed to prove her contention that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit house. The courts below were justified in turning down the plea as raised by plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa566.07.odt