1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.122 OF 2011 Shri.. Jothba Jakku Jadhav and Ors. .. Appellants V/s Shri.Ganapati Balaku Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.R.Suryawanshi for the Appellants. Mr.G.N.Salunkhe with Mr.Y.S.Kokitkar for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.3. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 25.03.2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The original Defendants have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Gadhinglaj in Regular Civil Appeal No.102 of 2005. By that judgment, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondents-original plaintiffs and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ajara in Regular Civil Suit No.106 of 2001. The learned District Judge decreed the suit instituted by the Respondents and directed the appellants-defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. The learned District Judge further issued injunction restraining the Defendants from carrying construction over the land at village Madilge 2 owned by the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs instituted suit for recovery of possession of land bearing Gat No.1181 on the ground that they are the owners of the property. They also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from encroaching upon the said land by constructing any house. The Defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement. They denied that in the consolidation scheme the said land was allotted to the plaintiff No.3 and that the hamlet was constructed by the plaintiffs. The Defendants contended that it was constructed by them and that the said land is their ancestral property. The Defendants further contended that they were paying the property tax. 3. On the basis of the rival contentions, the learned trial Judge framed necessary issues. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs have proved their ownership in respect of the suit land. The trial Court however dismissed the suit on the ground that though the plaintiffs contended that the house constructed in the suit land was allotted to the Defendants as gratuitous licensee in the month of May, 1991, it has come on record that the Defendants are in use and enjoyment of the suit land right from 1985. In view of this finding, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. 4. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs preferred appeal. Defendants 3 however did file either the cross-objections or cross appeal against the finding recorded by the trial Court as regards the ownership of the suit land. The learned District Judge considered the material on record and in particular Consolidation Certificate issued u/s.24 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The learned District Judge also came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their ownership qua the suit land and the Defendants failed to establish their ownership. 5. Mr.Suryavanshi submitted that the Defendants are paying the property taxes in respect of the house constructed by them in the suit land. The learned District Judge considered this aspect in Paragraph No.12 of the judgment and came to the conclusion that the house situate in the suit land does not bear any number alloted by Grampanchayat and that the Defendants are also owner of another house in the same village. The receipts produced at Exh.44 are in respect of the house bearing No.17, 34B and 594. The learned District Judge also considered that the Defendants did not lead any evidence to substantiate their case that they have constructed the house. Thus, the Courts below recorded findings of facts on the basis of appreciation of evidence that the plaintiffs have established their ownership and that the Defendants have failed to establish their ownership. The learned District Judge in particular 4 recorded that the Defendants did not establish payment of any amount to the plaintiffs and consequently, they are gratuitous licensee. Mr.Suryawanshi submitted that the Defendants are in possession of the suit land right from the year 1971 and the plaintiffs never objected to their continuation in the suit land. I do not find any substance in this submission as it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are gratuitous licensees. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the findings recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellants. Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and hence the same is dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application No.281 of 2010 and the same is also dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)