( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2006 Smt. Dhondabai w/o. Pandurang Shendge .. Appellants and ors. Versus Kalidas s/o. Digambarrao Mali and ors. .. Respondents Shri A.N. Gadime h/f. Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.N. Gadime h/f. Adv. Shri V.D. Gunale for the appellants. The appellants are original defendant Nos. 1 to 8, who are legal representatives of Pandurang Shendge. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original plaintiffs and respondent No. 3 is original defendant No.9. The plaintiffs filed suit for injunction simplicitor. The Trial Court granted the same. The First Appellate Court ( 2 ) confirmed the decree of injunction. Aggrieved thereby this Second Appeal is filed. 2. In para 14 of the Trial Court’s judgment it is stated that though in the 7/12 extract produced with list Exh.69, name of appellant No.1 Dhondabai was mentioned in the ownership column, still the 7/12 extract also shows that several plot-holders were in possession of the property. It is also admitted that Pandurang Shendge through whom present appellants claim, had sold suit plot to respondent No.3 Omprakash. Said Omprakash sold it to the plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintiffs are in lawful ownership and possession of the property. 4. It is argued before me by the learned advocate for the appellant that Pandurang was addicted to liquor and under influence he executed the sale-deed. However, in that case the remedy for the present appellants to seek declaration regarding setting aside the sale in favour of respondent No.3 Omprakash. In the facts of the present case, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property and their names are also entered in the ( 3 ) Grampanchayat record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. Therefore, in absence of any substantial question of law, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa659.06