( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.325/2005 Hiraman Punaji Ramteke and ors... -vs- Rambhau Ragho Ramteke, through Lr's Jagdish Rambhau Ramteke and ors.... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17/06/2008 Heard Shri Dhanagare, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by plaintiff Rambhau for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property. He further sought possession of the same from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit property which comprises of a plot and kachha construction standing thereon was gifted to the plaintiff by one Budha in the year 1947. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was ( 2 ) in possession of the suit property as a licensee thereof since the year 1973. Since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises on a request made on behalf of the plaintiff, the instant suit was instituted. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff, but admitted that Budha was initially, the owner of the suit property. According to the defendants, their father had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. The defendants, therefore, claimed title to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Budha had gifted the suit property to the plaintiff in the year 1947. On a plea raised by the plaintiff that he had inherited the property from Budha, being his only legal heir, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved his title to the suit property by inheriting the same from Budha. The plea of the defendant being the licensee in the suit property since the year 1973 was also accepted by the trial Court. The case of the defendants, of having acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession was however negatived by the trial Court. ( 3 ) In an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court to hold that the plaintiff had proved his ownership over the suit property, as he had inherited the same from Budha, though the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the validity of the gift deed made by Budha in his favour on 11/12/1947. The other findings recorded by the trial Court were also affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure finding of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Though it was canvassed by the counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff could have inherited the property from Budha, it could be seen from the plaint pleadings as also the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff that Budha was the real brother of the grand father of the plaintiff and the only son and daughter of Budha had expired 30 to 35 years ago and the plaintiff was the only legal heir of Budha. In any case, the original title of Budha over the suit property is not disputed ( 4 ) by the defendants and though they had claimed title to the suit property by adverse possession, the aforesaid fact was not proved by the defendants. The findings recorded by both the courts on the question of ownership of plaintiff are pure finding of facts, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE gsk