1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2009 Laxman Mahada Bhatangale & another's ... Appellants. Versus Arunkumar Devidas Moharir & others ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Vivek Bhavtankar, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. A.S. Rasal, Advocate for respondents. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE,J. DATE: 12th OCTOBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) This is an appeal filed by original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of 2 land Survey No. 87. One Maroti, was protected tenant of suit land, who was real brother of plaintiff No. 1 and on demise of Maroti land is come in their possession, they being successors. The defendant having no concern, are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs, as such plaintiffs approached the court seeking declaratory relief as well as prohibitory orders against the defendants. 3) The defendants appeared and contraverted the Contentions raised by the plaintiff by filing Writing statement. According to them, the tenancy of Maroti was already terminated and orders passed by tenancy authorities were confirmed upto High Court in Writ Petition No. 221/1984 & 356/1984. The possession of suit land has been delivered to the defendant No. 1 in execution of order by Tahasildar. It is contend that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim possession on the strength of tenancy of rights accruable to Maroti. In this view of the matter, it was contended that the suit was liable to be 3 dismissed. 4) The trial court, after appreciation of evidence led by the parties, has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their case, and as such dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court in RCA No. 61/1996. 5) I have heard the arguments of Shri Vivek Bhavatankar, learned counsel for appellant and perused the judgments delivered by the Courts below. I do not find any merit in the appeal. The view adopted by Court below is reasonable and proper. There is no ground for causing interference in exercise of powers under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 6) Appeal stands dismissed. (R.M. BORDE, J.) sdm/ 431.09 4