: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2009 Bhau @ Bhaurao Amrita Kardile .. Appellant V/s. Smt. Chandrabhaga Damu Jondhale .. Respondent ..... Ms. Deepali Patil i/by Mr. A.A. Garge for the appellant Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondent herein instituted the suit for possession of land bearing survey No.239/1 on the basis of her ownership in respect of the said property and for partition in respect of land bearing survey No.251/13. The said suit came to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik being Special Civil Suit No.255 of 2002. The said learned : 2 : Judge by his judgment and decree dated 6th July, 2006 accepted the claim of the respondent as regards land bearing survey No.239/1 and ordered the appellant to handover vacant and peaceful possession in respect of the said property to the respondent. Though not specifically stated, the claim of the appellant as regards property bearing survey No.251/13 was declined. The respondent has not challenged the said decree dated 6th July, 2006. The appellant was aggrieved by the order concerning the land bearing survey No.239/1 and hence the appellant challenged the said decree in the District Court by filing Civil Appeal No.167 of 2006. The said appeal was heard and decided by learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge at Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the said learned District Judge) by his judgment and decree dated 24th October, 2008 thereby confirming the decision of the learned trial Judge as regards land bearing survey No. 239/1. 2. The respondent staked her claim in regard to the land bearing survey No.239/1 contending that her father was the owner of the property and after his death she had secured rights and that the appellant is : 3 : in possession of the said property and he should handover the possession of the same. In the record, there is a reference namely the father of the respondent passed a mutation entry so as to show that the said land bearing survey No.239/1 in the name of the appellant. This mutation entry bearing No.2716 was heavily relied upon by the appellant to submit that the appellant has secured the ownership in respect of the said property. Both the Courts have declined to accept this contention and have accepted the claim of the appellant with reference to survey No.239/1. 3. This point was raised by the appellant before this Court through learned advocate for the appellant. 4. I have considered both the judgments. It is true that the mutation entry No.2716 stands in the name of the appellant. However, there is no document such as sale deed, gift deed or exchange deed so as to transfer the said land in favour of the appellant. If this be so, mere passing of a mutation entry in favour of the appellant by itself will not confer title on the appellant. This is being stated on the basis of well settled principle that mutation entry are to be : 4 : used for the purposes of fixing the liability as to who shall pay the revenue etc. and mutation entry does not decide the ownership. This aspect has been considered by both the Courts and have declined the stand of the appellant. 5. If this is the position, the appellant has failed to make out the case before this Court as regards the ownership of the suit property. 6. No other point was argued. There is no need to interfere with the concurrent finding as regards land bearing survey No.239/1. No substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Hence, appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Civil Application No.210 of 2009 in Second Appeal No.62 of 2009 is dismissed in view of the dismissal of the second appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)