1 SA 909.2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. A.G.Magare,Advocate for the appellant .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is Appeal by original defendant no. 2. 2. The present respondent had instituted Suit for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in possession of the suit land bearing G.No. 148. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal as against respondent no. 2, so also, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of western 1/4th part of the suit property i.e. to the extent of 2 H. 2 R. The injunction in respect of remaining part was refused. The defendant no. 2 being aggrieved by the grant of injunction by the lower appellate Court has filed present Second Appeal. 2 SA 909.2009 3. Mr. A.G.Magare, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court on appreciation of evidence had specifically come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove that she is the daughter of Guruji, interalia she did not have right over any part of the suit property. The learned counsel further contends that as the plaintiff did not have any right, title and interest over any part of the suit property, the plaintiff could not have claimed any right of injunction as the plaintiff did not have legal right. The possession of the plaintiff was with the consent of the defendant. As such, no injunction could have been clamped. The learned counsel further contends that the appellate Court without any evidence on record has held the plaintiff to be the daughter of Guruji. There is no evidence of independent person and the relationship is not proved as is required under section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. Mr. J.R. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the defendants have not come with the case that the plaintiff is a daughter of some other named person. The plaintiff in her evidence has detailed about the relationship, so also, the long standing revenue entries show that the plaintiff is the daughter of Guruji. The lower 3 SA 909.2009 appellate Court has considered this aspect of the matter. The learned counsel further contends that even the defendant admitted plaintiff’s possession over 2 H. 2 R. of the land and as such the plaintiff could not have been dis-possessed and is entitled for injunction. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gauda ( Dead ) by L.Rs. V/s M. Varadappa Naidu ( Dead ) by L.Rs. and another reported in 2004 (1) Supreme Court Cases – 769. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. The appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record, not only the oral evidence of the plaintiff but also the attending circumstances and has come to the plausible conclusion that the plaintiff is the daughter of Guruji. The plaintiff having been found in possession of the suit property is entitled for injunction. Even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled for injunction as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gauda referred supra. 7. The view taken by the Court below is a plausible and possible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that 4 SA 909.2009 some other view is possible. 8. In that light of the matter, the Second Appeal sans substantial question of law, is dismissed however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 909.2009