1 Second Appeal No. 721.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.721 OF 2010 Karbhari S/o Keru Bagul .. APPELLANT VERSUS Bala S/o Kishan Salunke (died) through this L.Rs. & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri N.K. Kakade, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and issue of perpetual injunction in respect of the land Gut NO. 32 & 33 or in the alternative for possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff No. 1 has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2 Second Appeal No. 721.10 2. Shri Kakade, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that defendants have came with a case that defendant Nos. 3 & 4 are the original owners of the suit property, so it is burden upon them to prove their ownership. As they have failed to prove their ownership, the case put-forth by the plaintiff ought to have been relied upon. Shri Kakade, learned Counsel further submitted that the suit properties were ‘Mahar Hadola’ lands governed by the provisions of Bombay Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act. As such, the said property could not have been sold without the permission of the competent authority. According to the learned Counsel, the Courts below have not taken into consideration this aspect. Even in the document produced before the Court, there is an entry that the land is ‘Mahar Hadola’. This aspect should have been considered by the Courts below, non consideration of the said aspect raises substantial question of law. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through 3 Second Appeal No. 721.10 the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 4. It is the cardinal principle of Civil Jurisprudence that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own. The plaintiff has approached this Court for relief of declaration that he is owner of the suit property and is claiming possession on the basis of title. So, the plaintiff has to prove the factum of ownership. Both the Courts have observed that even in the old documents of 1955-56 i.e. Pahani Patrak and Khasra Pahani Patrak, the predecessor in title of defendant Nos. 3 & 4 are shown as owners, and their names appear in the ownership and cultivation column. The plaintiff could not produce any document to show that predecessor in title had mortgaged the property with the predecessor in title of the defendant Nos. 3 & 4. The Courts have disbelieved the theory of plaintiff about mortgage, as the receipts which were produced on recored were not of the suit lands. 5. The second contention that the suit 4 Second Appeal No. 721.10 properties were ‘Mahar Hadola’ lands and were governed by the provisions of Bombay Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act and the same could not have been dealt with without previous permission of the competent authority is not sustainable, in as much as whether the land is a ‘Mahar Hadola’ land or not is a finding of fact. For giving a finding the pleadings should be on record. The plaintiff has no where pleaded that the suit properties are ‘Mahar Hadola’ lands. In the Second Appeal the said issue cannot be allowed to raise or decided. 6. Moreover, even if this land is assumed to be ‘Mahar Hadola’ lands, both the Courts have concurrently held that the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 are the owners of the property and a property could not have been sold, then in that case the sale-deed executed by the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 can come under cloud. But the plaintiff in either case would not be benefited. 7. In the light of the above, the Second 5 Second Appeal No. 721.10 Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 721.10/2911.10