gst 1 sa293.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2010 Chandsaheb Mirasha @ Abalal Sahib Mujawar Fair (decd.) ..... ... ...Appellant. V/s Rashid Mahamadhusain Kazi & Ors. . .... ... ..Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 15th September, 2010. PC: As and by way of present second appeal the appellant challenges the concurrent orders dated 20.6.98 thereby dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kolhapur, dated 13.8.09 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and setting aside the entries of defendant in respect of suit property in City Survey record and for possession of some portion of the suit property on the basis of title. The suit came to be dismissed. The appeal preferred there against is also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed. 3. Mr.Bandiwadekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that defendants 1 to 3 had no right in the suit property and therefore mutation entries in the record of rights in their favour were illegal and void. He further states that it has been incorrectly held by both the courts below that defendants 4 to 11 are not trespassers in the suit property. 4. It is case of the plaintiff that in the suit property the dead body of a religious saint named Tavkalsha is buried. After his death the suit property was developed by one Ismail Alisha Fakir. It is the case of the plaintiff that by gst 2 sa293.10.sxw succession the suit property is devolved on various persons and lastly on Mirasha. It is further case of the plaintiff that after death of Mirasha plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property and he is performing all the religious functions. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff was an absolute owner of the suit property. It was case of the plaintiff that though defendants 1 and 2 had no right in the suit property they had managed to get their names entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff has therefore claimed that defendants 4 to 11 were trespassers in the suit property. Plaintiff has therefore claimed relief of declaration of ownership. 5. Suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 have contended that the plaintiff was merely permitted to occupy some portion of the property. It was their contention that defendants 1 and 2 are the heirs of real owner and thereafter defendant No.3 has become the owner. It was contention of the defendants that since the plaintiff was performing certain religious functions, he was put in possession of certain rooms. 6. Learned trial court has held that the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to establish his ownership on suit property. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the appellate court. 7. Since it is the plaintiff who has gone to the Court seeking declaration of ownership and as a consequence thereof relief to delete the names of defendants from revenue record, it is for the plaintiff to establish by leading cogent evidence that he has title over the suit property. Unless the plaintiff establishes that he has title over the suit property, consequential relief cannot be granted. The Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to establish his title over the suit property. In that view of the matter no perversity could be noticed in the approach adopted by the courts below to warrant interference. In any case no question of law, leave alone substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Hence appeal stands dismissed.