1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.184 OF 2010 APPELLANT: Shyamrao Keduji Kondalkar, aged about 60 years, occupation : Private business, resident of Plot No.12, Bachchusing Layout, Near Narendra Nagar, Nagpur. VERSUS RESPONDENT: Sunil Krushnarao Nandanwar, aged about 42 years, occupation : service resident of Bante Building, Killa Road, Mahal Nagpur. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.185 OF 2010 APPELLANT: Shyamrao Keduji Kondalkar, aged about 60 years, occupation : Private business, resident of Plot No.12, Bachchusing Layout, Near Narendra Nagar, Nagpur. VERSUS RESPONDENT: Sunil Krushnarao Nandanwar, aged about 42 years, occupation : service resident of Bante Building, Killa Road, Mahal Nagpur. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.186 OF 2010 APPELLANT: Shyamrao Keduji Kondalkar, aged about 60 years, occupation : Private business, resident of Plot No.12, Bachchusing Layout, Near Narendra Nagar, Nagpur. VERSUS RESPONDENT: 1] Sunil Krushnarao Nandanwar, aged about 42 years, occupation : service resident of Bante Building, Killa Road, Mahal Nagpur. 2] Smt. Shalini wd/o Divakar Bhombe, aged about 70 years, Occupation : household 3] Arun s/o Diwakar Bhombe, aged about 40 years, occupation : 2 service 4] Nagesh s/o Divakar Bhombe, aged about 35 years, occupation : service No.2,3, and 4 R/o Chandan Nagar, P.T.S. Quarter No.199, Medical Road, Nagpur. [No. 2 to 4 deleted on 22.2.2010] =================================================== Shri S.S. Doifode, Shri B.K. Pal, advocates for appellant. =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 25/6/2010 COMMON ORDER: Since common question of facts arise in these three appeals they are heard together at the stage of admission and are decided by this common order. 2] The appellant is the plaintiff in two suits. The appellant, Shyamrao had filed Regular Civil Suit No.834/2000 against defendant Sunil and the legal heirs of one Diwakar who was the predecessor in title of defendant Sunil for a declaration that he became the owner of the property by adverse possession. The appellant Shyamrao also sought permanent injunction against the defendants in that suit. Similarly Regular Civil Suit No.234/2000 was also filed by appellant Shyamrao only against defendant Sunil for a declaration that he is the 3 owner of the property in pursuance of a sale deed dated 26.5.1964 executed in his favour by one Mahajan. 3] The respondent, Sunil had also filed Regular Civil Suit No.1398/2000 against appellant Shyamrao for a declaration of ownership and for possession. According to Sunil he had purchased the suit property from Nagesh who got the same by bequest from his father Diwakar. It was the case of Sunil that the property was purchased by him from Nagesh by sale deed dated 7.2.2000. 4] The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record held that appellant Shyamrao had proved his title to the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.5.1964. The trial court then held that respondent Sunil had failed to prove his ownership over the property in pursuance of the sale deed dated 7.2.2000. The trial court therefore, decreed the suits filed by appellant Shyamrao and dismissed the suit filed by respondent Sunil. 5] The first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence on record to 4 reverse the findings recorded by the trial court. According to the first appellate court appellant Shyamrao was not able to prove the title of his predecessor in title Narayan Mahajan from whom he claimed to have purchased the property on 26.5.1964. The first appellate court also considered the fact that appellant Shyamrao had claimed title to the property by adverse possession and there was absence of sufficient pleadings and evidence in that regard. The first appellate court held that though Shyamrao had produced the photostat copy and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.5.1964 on record, there was no other documentary evidence to prove the title of Narayan Mahajan from whom appellant Shyamrao had claimed to have purchased the property by the registered sale deed dated 26.5.1964. According to the first appellate court some documents issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust in favour of appellant Shyamrao did not show the title of Shyamrao over the suit property, but merely showed his possession. The first appellate court, therefore, reversed the finding recorded by the trial court that appellant Shyamrao was the owner of the suit property. 6] The first appellate court considered the fact that one Shankarrao 5 Muley had sold the suit property to Diwakar on 18.8.1949 by a registered sale deed. The registered sale deed was placed on record by respondent Sunil. Diwakar had made a will and had bequeathed the suit property in favour of his son Nagesh. Nagesh had been examined by respondent Sunil to prove that he was the absolute owner thereof. So also, Sunil examined Dhananjay the other son of Diwakar and the brother of Nagesh who also stated that the will executed by his father Diwakar in favour of Nagesh was legal and valid. The name of Nagesh was mutated in the records and thereafter Sunil's name came to be mutated after he purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 7.2.2000. The original sale deed was produced by respondent Sunil on record. The first appellate court held that respondent Sunil was able to prove the title of his predecessor in title also as he had proved the sale deed by Shankarrao Muley in favour of Diwakar on 18.8.1949 and then the will executed by Diwakar in favour of Nagesh and further the sale deed executed by Nagesh in favour of respondent Sunil on 7.2.2000. The appellate court also heavily relied on the notice exhibit 35 dated 18.8.1952 issued by the Corporation to Diwakar to pay the property taxes. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, 6 the first appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the trial court. 7] The findings recorded by the first appellate court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence the second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 8] On an oral request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this order is stayed for a period of six weeks, as it is stated on behalf of the appellant that there was an injunction operating in favour of the appellant before the trial court. It is however, made clear that on expiry of the period of six weeks the stay of this order would automatically stand vacated and respondent would be free to execute the decree against the appellant. JUDGE SMP.