1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SA/1361/2004 WITH CA/10320/2004 MAHADEO SHANKAR GHAYTADAK V/S CHANDULAL MISTRILAL KOTHARI ... Advocates appearing for : Appellant - Shri M.G.Kolse Patil Respondents 1 & 2 - Shri Pawar h/f Shri A.B.Kale Respondents 3 & 4 - Served Respondents 5 to 8 - Died during pendency before trial Court. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Dated : 19th November 2010 PER COURT :- 1. This is defendant's second appeal. 2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 and 7 from obstructing their possession over the suit property. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.10.1996 has decreed the suit. Defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Defendant No.5 has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 3. Shri Kolse Patil, learned Advocate for appellant has strenuously 2 contended that the lands in question are the inam lands under the Inferior Watan Abolition Act. They have been granted to appellant and other defendants. Plaintiffs were evicted from the suit lands. There cannot be any transaction in respect of the said lands in the light of the fact that said lands are governed by the said enactment and their could not have been any transaction in respect of the same. Plaintiffs can not claim any right, title and interest in the suit lands. The transaction itself is void ab initio by virtue of which plaintiffs are claiming their rights. In the light of these facts, Shri Kolse Patil, learned Advocate submits that both the Courts below have committed an error. 4. Per contra, Shri Pawar, learned Advocate for respondents contended that plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit properties and defendants in their written statement have specifically averred that the properties which are in their possession are not the suit properties. According to him, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which cannot be interfered in the present Second Appeal. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, I have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. The Courts below have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and have reached a conclusion that defendants have specifically stated the properties of which they are the owners and possessors. Said properties are not the suit properties. In the light of the fact that the properties which were specifically claimed by defendants were 3 not the suit properties, defendants could not have any right, title or interest to resist the claim of plaintiffs. Shri Kolse Patil, learned Advocate has contended that though the survey numbers were different, in fact, the property was the same, which is owned by defendants. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the proceedings and the respective gut numbers given to the survey numbers vide Exhibit 76. All these facts are the matter of appreciation of evidence. The view taken by the Court is a possible view and cannot be said to be perverse. In the light of the same and in view of the fact that defendants are not concerned with the suit property, even according to their own pleadings, they would not be affected. 6. The Second Appeal, being sans substantial question of law, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) ... akl