1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION Nos. 1692/08 & 1554/07 Ananda Namdeo Kamble & ors ........Appellants versus Rama @ Ramchandra Balku Kamble........ Respondent. Mr. V.S. Talkute for the Appellants Mr. N.B. Shah i/b Piyush Shah for the respondent CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Talkute learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shah for respondent. The appellant is original defendant and the respondent is original plaintiff. Suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. The suit came to be dismissed and respondent/plaintiff thereafter filed appeal before the lower appellate court, which was allowed by the judgment and order which is impugned in the present second appeal. The ownership of the respondent/plaintiff to the suit property is not disputed by the appellant/original defendant. The lower appellate court recorded finding of fact that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. There was temporary injunction 2 during pendency of the suit before trial court in favour of repsondent/plaintiff. Though the suit was dismissed, the lower appellate court in an appeal at the instance of respondent/plaintiff, granted temporary injunction during pendency of the appeal. 2. Mr. Talkute learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate court wrongly shifted the burden to prove the possession in the suit land on the defendant. He also submitted that in Wanivat case the respondent/plaintiff's son has given an admission to the effect that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. He further submitted that in the above facts the second appeal requires consideraion. 3. The first submission has no merit, in view of the finding of the lower appellate court in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, after appreciaitng the evidence on record that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. So far as second submission is concerned the lower appellate court did not give any importance to the so called admission of the respondent/plaintiff's son in the Wanivat case in as much as the alleged statement was not on oath, and respondent/plaintiff has denied the fact of having given such statement. In my view the lower appellate court has approached the case from correct point of view. I find no reason to interfere in the aforesaid circumstances. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal is therefore 3 dismissed. 4. In view of he dismissal of he second appeal, the civil application nos. 1692/08 and 1554/07 does not survive and the same are also dismissed. 5. Mr. Talkute at this stage seeks extension of interim order for some period. I am not inclined to extend the interim order as I find that the finding of possession recorded by the lower appellate court in favour of the respondent is correct. (R.V. More, J.)