* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2007 1. Shri.Shamsuddin Ghudusaheb Sayyad 2. Shri.Kamruddin Ghudusaheb Sayyad 3. Shri.Mahmadrafik Ghudusaheb Sayyad 4. Shri.Altaf Ghudusaheb Sayyad ....Appellants Versus Smt.Sushilabai Vasantrao Jade ....Respondents ­­­­­­­­ Mr.P.D.Pise, advocate for appellants. Mr.Umesh Mankapure, advocate for respondent. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 14TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :­ 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. The appellants who are the original plaintiffs filed this Second Appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 5th March, 2008 passed by the District Court, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.161 of 2001, which arises out of judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2001 passead by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1998. The respondent is the original defendant. * 2 * 3. The suit herein filed by the appellants was for injunction simplicitor to restrain the respondent inter­alia, from disturbing their possession of the suit property i.e. The agricultural lands together with residential house, cattle shed and a room for keeping agricultural equipments constructed thereon. The appellants claim to be the tenants in respect of the suit property. It is their further claim that about 12 years earlier, the defendant had let out the suit land to them on payment of yearly rent of Rs.500/­ or crops of the amount in lieu of the rent. The appellants then erected a residential house, cattle shed and a room for keeping the agricultural equipments on the land. They also spent money for improvement of the quality of the soil. They alleged that the respondent had been trying to dispossess them from the suit property by use of force. She is alleged to have approached the police authorities who threatened the appellants with direct consequence in case they refused to vacate the suit land. 4. The respondent in her written statement denied the claim of the appellants of tenancy in respect of the suit property, as well as, its possession. She also denied that they have erected any construction on the property or spent any money for its improvement. She claimed to be cultivating the land by employing labourers. She alleged that the appellants who are * 3 * the owners of the adjoining plot of land at Gat No.428 are trying to encroach upon her land. The suit filed by them was an attempt at such encroachment. 5. On the pleadings between the parties, the trial court framed issues as regards the appellant’s claim of possession over the suit land and allegation of obstruction to their possession. It answered both the issues in the negative and held that the appellants are not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction. The appellants had examined appellant no. 1 and three more witnesses in support of their case. The respondent examined her daughter Sunanda Jade. There was also documentary evidence produced before the court from both the sides. While appreciating the oral evidence led by the parties in the matter, the trial court observed that it was purely word against word and relied upon appreciation of the documentary evidence to decide the matter. The document which the trial court found to be supporting the claim of the respondent of possession of the suit property consisted of 7 x 12 extracts for the period 1993 to 1998 (Exhibits­40 to 44), Khatta extract i.e. 8A Extract (Exhibit­45), the revenue payment receipts for the year 1991 to 1997 and the entries made by the village talati recording crops and cultivators of the agricultural lands. These documents * 4 * show that the respondent is the cultivator of the suit land and has paid the land revenue to the government. The appellant on the other hand produced Patkari Daily Report extract (Exhibit­78), water consumption receipts (Exhibit­79 and 80), notices sent by sugar factory to appellant no.1 and the penalty issued by the sugar factory (Exhibit­35). As rightly held by the courts below these documents at the highest would establish that they had availed water from lift irrigation scheme operated by sugar factory. The Patkari Daily Report at some place did not mention the block number of the agricultural land. At other places, it gave the number of Block no.428 and at some other places there was over­writing over the number of the block. These documents therefore cannot be connected to the suit property at Block no.429. The notices sent by sugar factory and the penalty order relate to supply of water. The other documents relied upon by the appellants was correspondence by another daughter of the respondent with appellant no.1. This correspondence which is disputed by the respondent cannot establish physical possession of the suit land by the appellants. In the circumstances, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order. The * 5 * concurrent findings of fact by the courts is a reasonable and most probable view in the matter. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]