1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 385/2005 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : April 9, 2007. Heard Shri Bapat for the appellant, and Shri Kothale for the respondents. The appellant is the original defendant no.2. It was the case of the respondent no.1/plaintiff that the defendant no.1 was his licensee and he had illegally sold away the suit property to the defendant no.2 though he had no title to the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant no. 2 and it was pleaded by the defendant no.2 that the defendant no.1 had sold the suit property to the defendant no.2 by registered sale deed dated 19/12/1994. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff had proved his ownership over the suit property and the defendants had failed to prove that the suit property was the joint family property and was allotted to the share of the defendant no.1 in partition between him and his brother. The plaintiff was held to be entitled for the declaration, possession 2 and injunction. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, it was incumbent on the Court to have cast burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant no.1 was not the owner of the property. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted as presumption of the title under S. 110 of the Evidence Act would arise only when facts disclose no title in other party. Since the plaintiff has asserted that he was the owner of the suit property and the same was denied by the defendant no.2, and the defendant no.2 had claimed title in himself, both the Courts have rightly cast burden on the plaintiff to prove his ownership over the suit property and on the defendant no.2 to prove that the property was allotted to the defendant no.1 and the title passed to the defendant no.2 from the defendant no.1. Provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act could not be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP