1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.61 OF 2005. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 23.11.2010. 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession against the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Garud, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that the possession of the defendant was permissive possession as that of a licensee. The possession of the defendant was hostile since time immemorial i.e. since 1944. The said possession was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father. In such circumstances, it ought to have been considered by both the Courts that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and no decree could have been passed in favour of the plaintiff in that regard. Mr.Garud, learned counsel further submitted that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from perverse appreciation of evidence which gives rise to substantial question of law. 3. Per contra, Mr.V.S. Bedre, learned counsel supported the judgments of the Courts below. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments and decree on record. Both the Courts on evaluation of the evidence have categorically come to the conclusion that the induction in the suit premises of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 was at the behest of the father of the plaintiff and the same was permissive possession. The Courts below have considered the documents filed on record i.e. Exhs.52, 53 and Exhs.19 to 50 i.e. the Municipal receipts along with the original sale deed. Even the witness of the plaintiff has supported the case of the plaintiff. 5. The defendants had tried to enter their name to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property. There was no document worth the name to show their ownership. The defendants were twisting their case in the evidence. 6. The case is based on appreciation of the evidence. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible view. It has been held that the license was terminated on 29.11.1977. 7. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.23.11.2010. asp/office/sa61.05