1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2007 Shripat Pandu Wakade ........Appellant versus Chetram Charpat Wakade........ Respondent. Mr. V. P. Patil adv. for the Appellant None for the respondent CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for injunction against his nephew in regard to the agricultural land forming part of the suit. According to the defendant his father Charpat was also known as Sripat and had taken the suit land on lease from D.W. no.4 Chintaman Joshi who has been examined as a witness by the defendant. The plaintiff/appellant claims that his name is Sripat and he had taken the land on lease from the landlord and thus the ownership was conferred on him. The defendant has placed on record not only the certificate issued in the name of tenant under section 32-M of Bombay Tenancy Act but also payment of land revenue receipts for a long period. Both the courts below have found that the father of the defendant was infact the tenant of the land in 2 question and his name was Charpat @ Sripat. It has been found that the Plaintiff has worked in place of the father of the defendant Sripat in the same name in BMC, as the father of the defendant stopped attending the duties and permitted his brother viz. the plaintiff to work in his place. The plaintiff is trying to take advantage of entry of his name as Sripat in service records. This aspect has been considered in proper perspective by both the courts below. As the plaintiff failed to establish any right, title or interest in the suit properties, the suit for injuntion came to be dismissed. The defendant has also examined the real brother of the plaintiff who has deposed that the name of the defendant's father was Sripat whereas the real name of the plaintiff is Sakharam. It is also stated by him that the suit lands were taken on lease by the father of the defendant. The landlord is also examined and he has deposed that the Defendant's father was the tenant on whom ownership has been conferred. In the above set of facts the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the service record maintained by the BMC ought to outweigh the other material produced on record. The said submission is devoid of any merit. No substantial question of law emerges for adjudication. Hence appeal is summaily dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)