IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2004. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4124 OF 2004. Bhau s/o Laxman Gabhale and anr. .... APPELLANTS. VERSUS Ankush s/o Kalu Koktare and anr. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.R. Rathod, Advocate for Appellant/s.. Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for R. Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT: 1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned C.J.J.D., Akole in R.C.S. No. 174 of 1985 dated 31st March 1990 and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangamner in R.C.S. No.78 of 2000 dated 6th August, 2003 (Old MCA No.212 of 1990). 2. The R.C.S. NO.174 of 1985 was filed by the respondents herein claiming relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their possession over the suit land. The C.J.J.D., Akole, after hearing the parties and after framing necessary issues, decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein – original plaintiffs. The lower Court held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and further held that the defendants failed to prove that they are in possession of the property. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2000. The same came to be dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the issues framed by the C.J.J.D., Akole and submitted that though it was specifically stated in the written statement that Sonabai was not entitled to enter into sale deed or to sell the property and in spite of specific mention in the written statement, issue in this respect was not framed by the C.J.J.D., Akole. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants – defendants, Sonabai was not having legal title to transfer the suit lands to the plaintiffs and therefore, plaintiffs claim of title and right based on such sale deed is of no consequence. Therefore, the second appeal is sought to be entertained. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the courts below and submitted that the controversy in issue was confined to the possession. Therefore, there was no scope for the courts below to frame issue in respect of sale deed executed by Sonabai. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for respondents and after perusal of the judgment and orders passed by the courts below, it is clear that both the courts have held that the original plaintiffs are in possession of the property. The suit filed by the respondents was confined only to seeking direction / perpetual injunction against the appellants from obstructing their possession over the suit land. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below that respondents are in possession of the property. In my considered view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. 7. The second appeal is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed summarily. Civil Application stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ...