1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.273/2010 HARIBHAU SHAMRAOJI RAUT ..VS.. WASUDEORAO SHANKARRAO ASHATKAR & ORS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 18th June, 2010. Heard Shri Bhagwani, the advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration of ownership over the suit property, for possession of the same and for damages. According to the plaintiff, the respondent - the younger sisters of the plaintiff had illegally obtained the possession of the suit property and had taken false mutation entries in the 7/12 extracts. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was away from the village where the field was situated, and taking advantage of this fact, the defendant had dispossessed the plaintiff. The defendant had not filed the written statement in the case and also had not contested the suit. The trial and the first appellate court, however, non 2 suited the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had not proved his ownership over the suit property. According to the first appellate court, though the plaintiff had claimed ownership over the same by stating that it was his self- acquired property, he had failed to produce the document of title in the court. In such circumstances, according to the courts, it could not be said that the possession of the defendants over the suit property was illegal. The findings recorded by the first appellate court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Though the trial court had not discussed the evidence in detail, since the plaintiff had failed to produce the document of title before the court, though he had claimed ownership over the suit property on the ground that it was his self acquired property, the courts rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership over the same. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP