( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2499 OF 2005 Jagannath s/o. Keshavrao Dalwi and ors. .. Appellants Versus Mohammad Amin s/o. Gulam Qader .. Respondent Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Choudhari for the appellants. This first appeal is filed by the original defendants against whom decree of perpetual injunction is passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmathnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1991 on 10th April, 2003, which judgment and decree was further confirmed in appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 96 ( 2 ) of 2003, decided by Joint District Judge, Parbhani, on 27th April, 2004. 2. It is case of plaintiff/respondent that one Abdul Shakur had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1969 against Keshavrao who is predecessor in title of present appellants. The decree was passed against Keshavrao on 25.08.1970. Regular Darkhast No. 21 of 1980 was filed for execution of decree and in the execution the suit land was attached and sold in Court auction. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit land. The sale certificate was issued on 04.07.1983 and thereafter the plaintiff was put in the possession of both the suit lands block Nos.213 and 140, respectively on 24.06.1989 and 23.11.1988, by Bailiff of the Court. The panchanamas regarding delivery of possession were made. The defendants were obstructing the possession and hence suit for injunction was filed. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have come to a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff was in actual possession of the property and present appellants were disturbing possession. Besides evidence of the plaintiff, they ( 3 ) relied upon 7/12 extract of 1988-1989 so also panchanamas of delivery of possession. 3. The learned advocate Shri S.S. Choudhari for the appellants submitted that Keshavrao had expired on 12.03.1988. Misc. Application No. 11 of 1988 for possession was filed on 30.04.1988 and as the Keshavrao was dead the proceedings for delivery of possession are null and void. 4. In injunction suit what is important is actual settled possession and both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property. 5. After going through the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the view taken is unreasonable or perverse or not based on evidence on record. It cannot be said that any inadmissible evidence is taken into consideration or admissible evidence is not considered. So, in my opinion, this appeal cannot be admitted as no ( 4 ) substantial question of law arises. In the circumstances, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No.2499 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa313.05