1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 528/2010 Mahadeo Gulab Kulsange Vs. Kamlabai Vithalrao Rajurkar (dead) through Anant Marotrao Dadilwar and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED :19th JANUARY, 2011. Heard Mr. Anjan De, the learned counsel for the appellant. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58/2006 by which the decree of possession passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.81/2003 has been confirmed. Both the Courts below have on the basis of documentary evidence on record have concurrently held that the land in question was allotted to the husband of the original plaintiff who was an ex- serviceman under Maharashtra Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). Both the Courts below have held that the defendant has failed to prove his possession from 1971-72 and that the defendant has 2 dispossessed the plaintiff on or about 15.6.2003. Both the Courts below have therefore found it fit to decree the suit for possession on the said basis. On the point of ouster jurisdiction of the Civil Court, both the Courts below on consideration of relevant provisions of the said Act especially Section 40 thereof have concurrently held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction would not be barred as the husband of the plaintiff was allotted the land in question by the State Government and what the plaintiff was seeking was a decree of possession, against the defendant who had dispossessed him. It is pertinent to note that there is no contra case set up by the defendant in the suit under the provisions of the said Act, which the authorities under the said Act would have the jurisdiction to enquire into. In my view, therefore, the finding of the Courts below on the point of jurisdiction cannot be faulted with. In the light of findings recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar