1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.56 OF 2004 Bhikarilal Bhagvandin Jayaswal ..Appellant Versus Mohanlal Bhagwandi Jaiswal (deceased) through his L.Rs. ..Respondents ... Advocates appearing for : Appellant : Shri S.V.Natu, Respondents 1,2,4 and 5 : Shri S.D.Hiwrekar, Respondent 3 : Dismissed. ... CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. Dated : 21.7.2009 PER COURT :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff, aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below has preferred the present appeal. 2. Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 1989 claiming possession of the residential premises situated at village Khandbara, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3060/- from the defendant. It is contention of plaintiff that he is owner of the structure constructed on plot No.68, situated at village Khandbara, Tq. Navapur, District Nandurbar. Said structure was given on rent to defendant with effect from 9.8.1980 at the monthly rent of Rs.30/-. Defendant executed rent note on 9.8.1980 in 2 favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant is elder brother of plaintiff. Plaintiff used to demand rent from defendant. However, defendant refused to pay. Defendant is in arrears of rent. On these grounds, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent so also possession of the property. 3. Defendant appeared and controverted the contentions raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. He denied that plaintiff is owner of the structure on the plot No.68. Relationship of landlord and tenant has also been controverted by defendant. According to him, he has raised the construction over the suit plot and plaintiff alone is not owner of the plot. Defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit premises. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant as contended by plaintiff. The trial Court, as such, dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 5. The appeal presented by plaintiff, raising a challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, being Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 1992, also came to be dismissed the learned Additional District Judge, Nandurbar, on 5.7.2002. 6. I have perused the judgments and orders of both the Courts below and also heard arguments advanced by Shri Natu and Shri 3 Hiwrekar, learned Advocates for the respective parties. It is contended by Shri Natu, learned Advocate for appellant that in order to claim relief of recovery of possession, it is not necessary for plaintiff to establish his ownership rights and that he can claim the possession on the basis of possessory title. It is further contention of Shri Natu that non registration of the document i.e. Agreement to Lease cannot be a ground for non consideration of the said document. According to him, once the document is admitted in the evidence, the objection in respect of registration cannot be raised at the subsequent stage and further registration of such a document, in view of Section 25 of the Bombay Stamps Act, is not necessary. He has also contended that the document in question is not covered within the meaning of section 17 of the Registration Act. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Courts below have erred in turning down the case put up by plaintiff. 7. I have perused the judgments and orders of both the Courts below. It transpires that neither plaintiff nor defendant are the owners of the Gram Panchayat Plot No.68. The construction in question has also not been raised by either of them. However, it is the finding of fact, recorded by the Courts below that there is no construction raised by the plaintiff. The relationship of the landlord and tenant also cannot be said to have been established by the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that the plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. 8. Considering the evidence on record and arguments 4 advanced, it appears that the contentions raised in the appeal are the matter of appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 9. In the result, Second Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE, J.) ... akl