Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION Nos.2034 of 2008 Shri Ganpati Dadu Shinge & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri Dagadu Sitaram Mane & ors. ...Respondents Mr.G.M.Savagave, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the petitions. CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Savagave, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants. The Respondents-plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit Nos.45/2006 and 81/2006 for a decree of permanent injunction. In the first suit, the suit property is agricultural land located at Gat No.648 whereas in the Second Suit the suit property is agricultural land located in Gat No.661. In addition the defendants-present petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2006 seeking permanent possession in respect of the agricultural land located in Gat No. 660. 2. In Regular Civil Suit Nos. 45/2006 and 81/2006 the application filed for temporary injunction by the plaintiffs came to be allowed by the trial Court and, 2 therefore, the Petitioners filed two separate appeals before the District Court i.e. Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 40 and 41/2007. Both these appeals have been dismissed and,therefore, these two separate petitions. Having regards to the pleadings of the respective parties, the petitions are being disposed off by this common order. 3. Both the Courts below on the basis of the documents placed on record like the 7 X 12 extracts, the report submitted by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, the bills/challans regarding the sugar-cane supply and other details, have recorded a finding that the defendants’ plea about possession over the half portion or part of the suit land could not be established. The defendants are the successors of Topanna Shinge, who had filed RCS No. 26 of 1985 and made agricultural land admeasuring 80 R. from revised Survey No. 79/5 into present Block No. 648 as the suit land and with the same boundaries as mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 23/5/1969. Plaintiff No.4 who is the father of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 in the instant suit did not dispute the description of the suit land in RCS No. 26 of 1985 and accepted the Sale Deed dated 23/5/1969. As per the Sale Deed dated 23/5/1969 Tukaram Mane sold to Sitaram Mane half share admeasuring 80 R. from revised survey No. 79/5 and the boundaries of the land mentioned in the said Sale Deed 3 and the boundaries of the suit land in the instant case are the same. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, held that the plaintiffs had perhaps wrongly mentioned Gat No. 661 in which the suit land is located. But the fact remain that the defendants had no title or possession over the suit land, which is a concurrent finding by both the courts below and, therefore, they were rightly restrained. I do not find any reason to cause interference in the concurrent prima-facie view taken by both the Courts below. However, it would be appropriate that all the three suits are clubbed together and tried by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kurundwad. 4. Hence, the Petition is rejected and it is directed that Regular Civil Suit Nos. 20, 45 and 81/2006 shall be clubbed and decided together by the trial Court expeditiously. 5. Ad-interim order if any stands vacated. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]