JUDGMENT 1. This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dt.4.9.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2009, which was dismissed. The First Appeal arose from the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2005 on 21.7.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Wardha whereby the decree for possession of the suit house was granted and the trial Court directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit house to the plaintiff and also ordered enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: It was the case of plaintiff Sujata Ashok Moon that she had purchased open plot on 12.11.1990 as self-acquired property and thereafter, constructed two storeyed house on the said plot in the year 1999-2000. She was occupying ground floor while her brother-in-law (her husband's brother and defendant herein) orally requested plaintiff to permit him to occupy first floor temporarily for residence. Later, when the plaintiff called upon him to vacate the first floor, he started quarrelling with the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice dt.27.11.2004 calling upon the defendant to vacate the first floor, but the defendant gave false reply and refused to vacate. Hence, the suit was filed to recover possession from the defendant, who was merely a gratuitous licensee according to the plaintiff. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that there was a joint hindu family consisting of the husband of plaintiff, the defendant and other two brothers, while their elder brother Arvind resided separately after his marriage. Other brothers were staying together. According to the defendant, husband of plaintiff was karta of the family and the defendant used to contribute income to the family. Thus, according to the defendant, out of the joint family income, the suit house was acquired. The issue arose before the learned trial Judge as to whether the suit house belonged to the plaintiff and whether the defendant resided therein on the basis of license and as to whether the suit house or plot were constructed/purchased out of joint hindu family income as contended by the defendant. The trial Court found that the suit house is owned by the plaintiff, while the defendant was residing because the plaintiff permitted him to reside temporarily and gratuitously. The trial Court found that the suit house is owned by the plaintiff, while the defendant was residing because the plaintiff permitted him to reside temporarily and gratuitously. The trial Court also found that the suit property was not acquired by the joint hindu family as contended by the defendants. Thus, on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court and also after examination of judicial precedents cited before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge was pleased to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff by a reasoned judgment. 4. The unsuccessful defendant challenged the decree by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha who, after examination of merits, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property and the defendant has failed to prove that it was purchased by funds of joint hindu family, as alleged by him. In the result, therefore, the decree was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Thus, the unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is in appeal before this Court. 5. I have heard the submissions advanced at the bar. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned first Appellate Judge did not deal with the evidence recorded in proper perspective and therefore, the Judgment by the first Appellate Court is vitiated as, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit ought to have been filed in Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, proper issues were not framed by the Courts below to decide the controversy between the parties. Therefore, it is submitted that there arises a substantial question of law as to whether the judgments and decree passed by the Court below are sustainable according with law. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the real questions involved in the controversy is in respect of ownership of the plaintiff of the suit house and status of the defendant as “gratuitous licensee” were issues which were considered in depth by both the Courts below including defence by the defendant that it was a joint family property. It is also brought to my notice that no any counter claim was raised in the suit and therefore, no issue arose as to whether the suit was barred in view of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and also on the ground as to whether the suit property was belonging to the joint hindu family allegedly consisting of husband of the plaintiff as well as the defendant and other brothers namely Ashok, Dilip and Arvind. 7. Looking into the impugned judgment and order as also the judgment and order recorded by the trial Court and from the copy of the pleadings it appears that the suit was filed on the basis that the plaintiff is owner of the suit house, possession of which was claimed on the basis of title/ownership of the suit house on the ground that the defendant was permitted to occupy the first floor of the suit property and he refused to vacate the same despite issuance of notice in writing sent and delivered to the defendant. It also appears that although it was not strictly necessary according to law to consider the counter contentions contrary to the defence as to the suit claim; that too in absence of the counterclaim by the defendant, the Courts below did consider the contention raised by the defendant as to his claim that the suit property was purchased with the help of joint hindu family funds and answer was recorded in the negative by both the Courts below. In the absence of any specific counterclaim in the suit, in my opinion, the defendant could have efficaciously sought a declaratory relief by independent proceeding by proving that the suit house was acquired by the joint hindu family using joint funds by or on behalf of the joint hindu family. But, considering the gist of the suit claim in the present suit, the suit was instituted simplicitor and purely on the basis of title of ownership of the suit property. Documentary evidence was also led regarding registered sale deed (Exh.34), on the basis of which the plaintiff claimed that she had purchased the suit plot and then constructed the suit house thereon. 8. My attention is invited to the ruling in the case of Hanif Gulamali Somji and Others .vs. Purnima Agro Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in 2013 (6) Mh. 8. My attention is invited to the ruling in the case of Hanif Gulamali Somji and Others .vs. Purnima Agro Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in 2013 (6) Mh. L.J. 185 which was in respect of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. In that case, the suit was filed on the basis of ownership of the suit property and the contention was raised in defence that purchase was made benami in the name of the plaintiff. This Court held that the party who is not shown as purchaser, though may have paid consideration, cannot claim any right against the party in whose name the property is purchased or held. in the result, therefore, this Court has restrained the defendant in that suit by an order of injunction. As against this, two rulings were cited. The first ruling is in the case of Mariya Colaco and another .vs. Alba Flora Herminda D'souza and Others reported in 2008 (6) Mh. L.J. 289 in order to submit that the High Court in Second Appeal normally do not interfere with the questions of fact, but if, on the scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are totally perverse then the High Court can interfere in the matter as it constitutes the questions of law. The second ruling is in the case of Dilip s/o. Vishnuji Kolte and Others .vs. Dattatraya s/o. Babuji Peche and Others reported in 2008 (6) Mh. L.J. 150, which is pointed out to submit that the first Appellate Court must record a judicial finding on all the issues and must record reasons before recording the findings on the points for determination. It cannot be disputed that the first Appellate Court is duty bound to apply its mind to the points for determination raised by the parties and then to record reasons one way or the other for upholding or rejecting the judgment of the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, legal position has to be understood on the basis that the suit claim was simplicitor on the basis of title of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property claiming possession from the defendant, who was stated as in permissive occupation of the suit premises. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, legal position has to be understood on the basis that the suit claim was simplicitor on the basis of title of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property claiming possession from the defendant, who was stated as in permissive occupation of the suit premises. The evidence was led that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property under the registered Sale deed and the fact that the defendant had orally requested to allow him to occupy the first floor after the house was constructed on the open plot, which was purchased under the registered Sale deed. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, upon proof of the title by the plaintiff as owner of the suit property, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit premises from the defendant proved to be in permissive occupation of the suit house. In the absence of any counter claim by the defendant, it was not all necessary for the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court to widen the controversy and to deal with the inconsistent stand by the defendant that the suit property was belonging to joint hindu family, which was a plea raised only with a view to defeat and delay the proceedings in the suit filed on the basis of ownership of the suit property. Because no any counter claim was made on this pretext. That being so, I must express my opinion that it is open for the unsuccessful defendant to claim relief, if any, by filing independent suit for proving that the suit property was acquired with the help of joint family funds. In the present suit, however, in the absence of any counter claim, the defendant has no any legal right to refuse to hand over possession to the plaintiff, who is owner of the suit property under the registered sale deed. 9. Considering that this is a second appeal and the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings in respect of ownership of the suit property and right to possession which the plaintiff had in respect of the suit premises, to recover it from the defendant, I do not find that any substantial question of law having any real substance worth considering at the stage of Second Appeal. There would be no room for interference in view expressed by the Courts below that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit premises on the basis of her title and legal right to possession claimed under registered sale deed. Both the Courts below have considered the material evidence and arrived at correct conclusions on the basis of proved facts. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law involved in the case and since right to second appeal is neither natural nor inherent right attached to the litigation but it is statutory right constrained u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and regulated according to the provisions of law. The condition precedent is existence of substantial question of law which ought to be strictly followed before Second Appeal can be entertained as against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Since both the Courts have considered the evidence thoroughly to base their concurrent findings on evidence, there is no legal scope to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. No order as to cost. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant, at this stage, prays for grant of eight weeks time to vacate the suit premises, which prayer is objected by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Considering that the unsuccessful appellant may avail his remedy to approach the Apex Court, time of eight weeks is granted for the appellant to vacate the suit premises.