1 sa120-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.120 OF 2011 Smt.Parvatibai Gopal Mohite and ors. ..Appellant Vs Ramesh Ganpat Mohite and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr. M.V.Limaye, for appellants. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 23 rd FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr.M.V.Limaye, learned counsel for the appellants. 2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22 nd April, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1996 Civil Appeal No.74 of 1996 as also the judgment and decree dated 31 st July, 1995 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Junior Divisiion, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No.1506 of 1987. By these orders, the Courts below dismissed the suit instituted by the appellants for recovery of possession of Room admeasuring 10 X 12 ft out of Municipal house No. 126-A situate at CTS Nos.703 and 704. 3] The plaintiffs instituted suit on the ground that Gopal Mahadeo Mohite purchased CTS Nos.703 and 704 by registered sale deed dated 13 th January, 1947. In March, 1985 the defendants requested the plaintiffs 2 sa120-11.sxw to accommodate them in the suit premises for temporary period with an assurance that after getting suitable accommodation, they will vacate the suit premises. Considering the relations, the plaintiffs gave the suit premises to the defendants without any consideration or compensation. Though the defendants were requested to vacate the premises, they avoided to vacate and consequently, on 11 th June, 1987, the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants through an advocate. Since there was no compliance, suit was instituted. Defendant No.2 resisted the suit by filing written statement exhibit 12. It is his contention that the construction on the open land was carried out jointly by four brothers with their common fund and therefore, all the brothers have equal share therein. 4] On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Judge framed necessary issues. Parties led evidence and on the basis of the material on record, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their exclusive ownership in respect of the suit room. Learned trial Judge further held that the defendant no.2 has proved share in the suit property. Accordingly, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Against that judgment, plaintiff preferred appeal which was dismissed on 22 nd April, 2003. On the basis of the material on record, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that they incurred expenditure for carrying out construction. This discussion is found in paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the judgment of the learned District Judge. 5] Having regard to the findings recorded by the Courts below which are based on the material on record, I do not find that the Second Appeal 3 sa120-11.sxw involves substantial question of law. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]