1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 421/2006 (Daulat Adku Chatte VERSUS Shamrao Sadashiv Khamankar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.D. Malke, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anup Dhore, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2008. Heard Shri Malke, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dhore, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff on a plea that the plaintiff was the owner of a plot admeasuring 50 Feet X 30 Feet and a hut standing thereon which was numbered as Gram Panchayat House No.30. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the plot for a consideration of Rs.500/- from one Mahadev and thereafter constructed a hut which had a tin shed. On the request of the defendant, the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to occupy the hut as a licensee. The defendant had agreed to vacate the hut on demand. Since the defendant failed to vacate the hut in spite of the demand and a notice from the plaintiff, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for possession and damages. 2 The defendant filed his written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff over the property. According to the defendant, in the year 1989, he found an unclaimed plot which is now the suit property and had constructed a hut thereon. Later on, he became aware that the plot belonged to Mahadev. According to the defendant, Mahadev permitted him to stay on the plot as he was residing on yet another plot. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court considered the evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that he had title over the suit property. The Court held that though there was a sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by Mahadev, it was not a registered document. Mainly, on the aforesaid finding, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court maintained the finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership on the disputed plot. However, since the defendant had also admitted the ownership of Mahadev over the plot and there was a sale-deed executed by Mahadev in favour of the plaintiff, considering the same with the other documents and receipts 3 which showed the possessory title of the plaintiff over the suit property since the year 1984, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff had acquired possessory title over the disputed plot. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of evidence, held that the possession of the defendant over the suit site was that of a trespasser and the plaintiff was entitled to seek possession of the property from the defendant. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Ever otherwise, after the decree was passed by the first appellate Court, the appellant has lost his possession. The substantial questions of law as stated in the memorandum of second appeal are not, in fact, the substantial questions of law. Both the questions stated in the memorandum of appeal pertain to the appreciation of evidence and do not raise any question of law at all. Since no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE