1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.295/2009. (Sau. Maya Patil +1 V/s. Prakash Kamble) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.C. Chahande, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Smita Taksande, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 06, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellants are the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for grant of permanent and mandatory injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from Bahinabai by a registered sale deed dated 20/9/1997 for a consideration of Rs.95,500/-. The plaintiff had obtained the possession of the suit field on the same day but the defendant tried to threaten and intimidate one Raju who was given the field on theka. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants had obstructed the plaintiff for 2 cultivating the field and therefore permanent and mandatory injunction was sought. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property in view of the registered sale deed dated 20/9/1997. According to the defendants, the sale deed was not binding on the defendants. The defendants also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from disturbing the peaceful possession of the defendant no.1 over half share in the suit property. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the suit property and had also proved that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the same on 15/12/1998. The trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the sale deed dated 20/9/1997 was null and void. The trial Court therefore, granted permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court did not grant any permanent injunction in favour of defendant no.1. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the defendants. The First appellate Court held that the defendants failed to 3 prove that Bahinabai was not authorized to sell the suit field to the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of appeal are not substantial questions of law. The Second appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar