: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.797 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.797 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.797 OF 2007 Mahadeo Ramchandra Doiphode ...Appellant V/s. Madhukar Balkrishna Deshpande, Deceased, . Through Malti Madhukar Deshpande . and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.A. Thorat, Advocate, for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant were heard yesterday. The appellant is the original defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership as well as for injunction. The respondent-plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the Grampanchayat House Nos.1374 and 1373 as well as an open space bearing City Survey No.1377. The suit was contested by the appellant. The Trial Court passed a decree by holding that the respondent-plaintiff has proved the ownership of the property described in paragraph No.2(A) of the plaint. The appellant was directed to remove the construction carried out on the open space out of the property within a period of two months from the date of the : 2 : order. An Appeal was preferred by the appellant. The said Appeal was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court. 2. The appellant-defendant had resisted the suit by contending that the father of the appellant purchased the house bearing Grampanchayat Property No.1377 from one Madhavrao Ganesh Brahman by a registered sale deed dated 29th September, 1930. It is contended by the appellant that property bearing G.P. No.1377 is his ancestral property and the suit property-open space has been in use and possession of the appellant and his ancestors as a Court yard of his house since the year 1930. The case of the appellant is that after partition, the suit property has been allotted to his share. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that the Courts below have committed an error by holding that the sale deed dated 29th September, 1930 does not confer title on the predecessors of the appellant. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and submitted that a sanad issued under the Bombay Land Revenue Code by itself cannot be a document of title. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court which is reported in XLI : 3 : Bombay Law Reporter 939, it is submitted that a sanad granted under the Bombay Land Revenue Code is not in the nature of a document of title and at highest it is a document affecting the rights between the Government and the person who claims to be the allottee of the property. He, therefore, submitted that the sanad which is relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff cannot be taken as a document of title and the Courts below ought to have held that the predecessors of the appellant became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Courts below and especially the Appellate Court found that the open space in dispute which is described in the sale deed dated 29th September, 1930 as well as the sanad at Exhibit-53 is to be the one and the same. In fact, the Appellate Court has noted that the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-defendant did not make a submission to the contrary. 5. It must be stated here that one Sakharam had two sons by the name Bhau and Nagesh. Nagesh had a son by the name Balkrishna. The original plaintiff : 4 : Madhukar is the son of the said Balkrishna. A suit was instituted by the said Bhau against Nagesh and others in the year 1896 for partition and separate possession. A certified copy of the decree passed in the said suit is produced on record. The plaintiff Madhukar claims title and possession on the basis of the said decree. The Appellate Court found that the description of the open space in the said decree at Exhibit-40 and the sale deed at Exhibit-63 relied upon by the appellant was one and the same. That is the reason why the Courts found that there was nothing on record to show that the vendor of the original defendant who purported to execute the sale deed in the year 1930 in favour of the appellant had any title to the disputed property. 6. Considering these aspects, the issue of title has been decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The findings of the Courts below are not based only on a sanad. 7. I find no error in the approach of the Courts below. In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded on the issue of title, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. : 5 : 8. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.797 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 9. On the prayer made by the Advocate for the appellant, the decree for mandatory injunction stands stayed for a period of twelve weeks from today. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]