1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.935 OF 2008. Burhan S/o Asgar Patel ... Appellant. Versus Sujaoddin S/o Sharifoddin ... Respondent. ... Mr.R.K.Ashtekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The original defendant has preferred the Second Appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below. The Respondent filed suit (RCS No.10/2004) for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. The dispute relates to agricultural land bearing Gat No.430 admeasuring 2 1 hectare 63 Ares. The plaintiff's case is that he owns the suit land on the basis of purchase from one Venkat S/o Mahadu by virtue of sale deed dated 14.1.1969. He was inducted in possession of the suit land by said Venkat. Said Venkat purchased the said land by virtue of a sale deed dated 24.1.1968 from Dastagir S/o Hydersab. The defendant (appellant) obstructed in his lawful possession and as such he filed the suit. Both the Courts held that the title of the respondent was duly proved and his possession was referable to the lawful title and as such decreed the suit. 3. Mr.Ashtekar, learned advocate would submit that the issue regarding entries in the consolidation record was required to be determined by the competent authority for which a reference should have been made under provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. He argued that when the revenue Tribunal is moved in respect of correction of the revenue entries then the declaration and injunction should not have been 3 granted because the dispute relates to the area which could be claimed by the Respondent(plaintiff). The trial Court observed that mere entries in the revenue record will not confer title and those revenue entries in favour of the appellant are subject matter of dispute. So far as the entries in the consolidation record are concerned, it is worthy to be mentioned that the Respondent produced a certified copy of the judgment rendered by the Consolidation Authority. The first appellate Court observed that the competent Consolidation Officer has decided in favour of the plaintiff. It is also observed by the first appellate Court that the present appellant had not challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer by filing any appeal or Revision. Obviously, such order of the competent Officer became final and, therefore, there was no need to refer the issue to the authority. The trial Court also relied upon observations in "Shevantabai Maruti Kalhatkar Vs. Ramu Rakhamaji Kalhatkar and another" AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2620, wherein it has been laid down that the first appellate Court can not go behind order 4 rendered by the competent Consolidation Officer. Obviously, the view taken by the first appellate Court can not be faulted with. 4. The findings rendered by the Courts below are purely findings of facts and, therefore, no substantial question of law as such is involved. The appeal is outside the scope of Section 100 of the C.P.C. The appeal is, therefore, not maintainable in view of "Mahaboob Vs. Maktumsab" 2008 AIR SCW 2230. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa93508