IMPORTANT POINT
Registered gift-deed can be received in evidence without examining one of attestors if person who has executed deed of gift has not specifically denied its execution.

R.K. Deshpande, J.— Regular Civil Suit No.62 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises and recovery of damages, was dismissed by the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 18.7.1990. In Regular Civil Appeal No.59 of 1990 preferred by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the Trial Court on 28.9.1992 and the suit is decreed, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the possession of the suit property and directing the defendant to handover the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff. The decree for damages and future mesne profits has also been passed. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court in this second appeal.

2. This second appeal was admitted on 1.4.1993 on the substantial questions of law at serial Nos.(a) and (b) in para 17 of the memo of appeal, which are reproduced below:

“(a) Whether in the absence of any proof as to the acquisition of title to the Nazul Plot in suit by the Plaintiff of her predecessor, the Additional District Judge was right in holding that the plot in suit is owned by the Plaintiff?

(b) Whether, the document Exhibit 45 which is held to be gift-deed, held to be proved when none of the attesting witnesses is examined and the attestation is not proved?”

3. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff Geetabai has established that Trimbakrao was the owner of the suit property. The Trial Court has, however, rejected the claim of the ‘plaintiff for ownership of the suit property, based upon the registered release deed dated 17.2.1987 at Exhibit 45 on the ground that the attesting witness has not been examined. The Trial Court has further held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant was occupying the suit premises as her licensee and the said licence was terminated on 31.5.1987. In respect of the claim for damages, the Trial Court has held that the same does not arise for consideration in view of the findings recorded on the aforesaid issue. The Trial Court has also rejected the contention of the defendant that he has perfected the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

4. In regular civil appeal, the Appellate Court has concurred with the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding ownership of Trimbakrao. The Appellate Court has further held that the plaintiff has proved her title to the suit property on the basis of the registered document of release deed dated 17.2.1987 at Exhibit 45. The Appellate Court has further recorded the finding that the defendant was occupying the suit premises as the licensee of the plaintiff and his licence was terminated by giving a notice dated 20.4.1987 at Exhibit 30. The Appellate Court has also concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the defendant has failed to establish his title by way of adverse possession.

5. The finding of the Courts below regarding ownership of Trimbakrao, is based upon the certified copies of tax issued by the Gram Panchayat for the years 1962-63 to 1973-74 at Exhibit 39, the certified copy of Index No.11 at Exhibit 32, and the certified copy of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 14.3.1987 at Exhibit 33. The oral evidence of PW2 Trimbakrao Deshrnukh at Exhibit 44 has also been relied upon. The finding regarding ownership of the plaintiff has been recorded on the basis of the release-deed dated 17.2.1987 executed by Trimbakrao at Exhibit 45 and the oral evidence of Trimbakrao. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is based upon the evidence available on record. At any rate, it is a possible view of the matter, and hence the substantial question of law at serial No.(a) does not at all arise for consideration.

6. On the substantial question of law at serial No.(b), though the Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the question of attestation over the document in question, the fact that the document is the registered release-deed, is not dispu