( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 936 OF 2009 Maruti s/o. Namdeo Bodke .. Appellant Versus Pandurang s/o. Gopalrao Bodke & ors. .. Respondents Shri M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri M.L. Dharashive for the appellant and Adv. Shri H.V. Patil for respondent No.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff, whose suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was partly allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, thereby granting only perpetual injunction against respondents/defendants. However, in the appeal the learned II Additional District Judge, Latur, allowed the ( 2 ) appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. 2. The First Appellate Court has held that so far as the title is concerned, so called Kabala is not proved. I have occasion to see original record. The so called Kabala is a document written in handwriting on a stamp paper of Rs.1.50 ps. Though it bears seal of Tahsil Office, Ausa, on upper side, it does not bear any signature or stamp of the person signing the document. There is no other village record to show that particular plot is owned by the plaintiff. Mere payment of taxes to the Grampanchayat is not sufficient. The defendants have also come with a case that said plot was given by Kabala (sanad) to one Shriram, who was brother of defendant No. 8 (respondent No.1). 3. The First Appellate Court has also observed that there is no sufficient evidence regarding possession and there is mere oral word. Evidence of witness examined by the plaintiff clearly shows that he was not residing at the village for 2-3 years before his evidence ( 3 ) and that he was residing at Hyderabad for some period before his deposition. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the conclusion drawn by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be not based on record or perverse. In the circumstances, there is no substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 936 of 2009 does not survive. The Second Appeal stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa1464.04