1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.733 OF 2006. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8316 OF 2006 Venkatesh S/o Govindrao Joshi ... Appellant. Versus Smt.Pratapkaur W/o Ratansingh ... Respondent. ... Mr.M.K.Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 06.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for possession against the present Respondent. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the appellant has not 2 been in a position to prove the document of lease by virtue of which the appellant claims his right over the property. The appellant claims that defendant No.2 had executed Nuzulnama in his favour for an area of 75x21 ft. of CTS No.13030. The said City Survey number totally admeasures only 66 Sq.metres. Further it is found that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. When the defendant is in possession of the suit property and the dispute is of ownership, even as per Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant who is in possession of the property is not the owner nor has any right over the property. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff could not prove the same. No error apparent on the face of record is found in the judgments of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arise, hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is 3 disposed of accordingly. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa733.06