1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.766 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.766 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.766 OF 2007 Jayram Bhau Chavan : Appellant. versus Nilkanth Raghunath Pandit & ors. : Respondents. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the Appellant. Mr.Surel Shah for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5C and 5D. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned II AD-hoc District Judge-2 Kolhapur. The Appellant herein who claims through one Hari Chavan is the Original Plaintiff No.2 who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.425 of 1988 for injunction simplicitor in respect of land bearing Gat Nos.427 and 352 admeasuring 0.70 R each. 2 2. In a nutshell, it was the case of the Plaintiffs that the suit lands were tenanted lands and that the Plaintiffs’ uncle Hari Chavan, who was the tenant, along with the Plaintiffs was in possession of the same for more than 40 years. That on the basis of the wrong entries made in the revenue records, Defendant No.1 started interfering with the Plaintiffs’ possession and hence the suit for injunction came to be filed by the Plaintiffs. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the Defendants that the said Hari Bhau Chavan surrendered the lands in favour of the Defendants as he was not in a position to cultivate the same on account of his age. Pursuant to the said surrender, Hari Chavan applied for deletion of his name from the revenue record and therefore, the name of the Defendant came to be recorded from the year 1977. 4. It was further contended by the Respondents that the Plaintiffs have no concern with the suit lands, as they were never in possession of the same. 5. The trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1992 dismissed the suit. The Appellate 3 Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree confirmed the same. 6. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding on the basis of the genealogy that the said Hari Chavan was not the real uncle of the Plaintiffs and that the theory of the Plaintiffs that Hari Chavan was the Karta of the family was difficult to accept in view of the fact that the father of the Plaintiffs was alive. 7. Both the Courts below on the basis of the Tenancy Court’s Orders at Exhibits 61, 62, 65 and 66 came to a conclusion that Hari Chavan had expressed a desire to surrender the suit lands vide his statement dated 9.1.63 which was recorded in the revenue proceedings. The concerned Revenue Court, therefore, directed the eviction of Hari Chavan from the surrendered lands. 8. Both the Courts below on the basis of 7 x 12 extracts had come to a conclusion that the Defendants were in possession of the lands since 1977-78. Both the Courts below were therefore of the view that the relief of injunction could not be granted to the Plaintiffs. 4 9. Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact on the basis of the material that was before them. 10. In my view the challenge raised in the above Second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of dismissal of the above Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.1435 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]