1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1725 OF 2004 Shivaji S/o Taterao Jamdhad .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Narayanrao Dattarao Kavade & Others. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.S.Agrawal , Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H.V.Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 07/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellant is original defendant. The present respondent had filed Suit against the present appellant for possession of house No. 21 situated at village Durg-Sawangi. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The present appellant preferred Appeal before the District Court. The Additional District Judge, Hingoli dismissed the Appeal. Against the concurrent findings, the appellant is before this Court. 2. Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sale deed Exh. 47 on which the reliance has been placed by the Courts below is xerox copy, which could not have been admissible in evidence. 2 There is patent error on record. 3. From the perusal of the Judgments of the Courts below, it is manifest that the sale deed Exh. 47, by virtue of which plaintiff became the owner is the original document and shows that the plaintiff had purchased house No. 21. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the defendants have not been in a position to show their source of title nor any document of title could be produced by the defendants. 4. In the light of above, the defendants have absolutely no title to the property and the plaintiff has proved his title. No error can be found in the Judgments of the Courts below. 5. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of S Appeal, Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] knp/ SA 1725.2004