Judge, framed the issue as regards the title of the Appellants. The issue was answered in favour of the Appellants. The case of the Respondents that the Aforamento was given to the original grantee for the benefit of the entire family was specifically negated by both the Courts. The Respondents could not produce any evidence whatsoever in furtherance of their case. The Appellants had produced the certificate issued in the year 1912 in respect of the property, which specifically mentioned the name of Ganesh, father of Plaintiff No.1. The endorsement thereafter by the office of Administration dated 10 January 1964 transferring the Aforamento in favour of Plaintiff No.1, was also placed on record. The map of the Directorate of Land Survey, in which the grant was acknowledged, was also produced on record. The names of the Respondents appeared in the Revenue records, only in the Other Rights column, that too only for the houses. The receipt of payment of foro or the quit rent by the Plaintiffs, was on record. As against these documents showing the title of the Plaintiffs, nothing was produced by the Respondents from which it could be established that they had any semblance of ownership rights in respect of the suit property. The findings of the learned Civil Judge that the Appellants are the owners of the suit property was not challenged by the Respondents in appeal and therefore, both the Courts have concurrently held in favour of the Appellants on the aspect of ownership in which there is no error. Mr. Usgaonkar, the
