1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.191/2010 Mahadeo Gondu Prabhe ..vs.. Durgaprasad Narayandas Latoriya - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, advocate for appellant. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29, 2010. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of the suit property. The father of the appellant/ defendant had started a tenancy dispute with the that plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeded in those proceedings and the Tahsildar handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 20.4.1973. The possession receipt was also issued on that date. Though the defendants have no concern with the suit property, they were trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. They, however, admitted about the tenancy dispute between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants. They denied that the Tahsildar had handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 20.4.1973. They sought for the dismissal of the suit. The learned trial court framed the issues and after an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he was put in possession 2 of the suit field on 20.4.1973. The court held that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property even after the execution of the Tabe Paoti by the Tahsidlar on 20.4.1973. The court discarded the report of the Naib Tahsildar of the year 2005 by considering the evidence of the Naib Tahsildar and other witnesses. The courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to grant of permanent injunction. The findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the first appellate court in an appeal filed by the defendant. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE smp