(1) SA. 574.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2009 1] Janardhan S/o Rakhmaji Bhombe Age : 65 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Aadgaon Bhombe, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna 2] Namdev Janardhan Bhombe, Age : 46 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : As above 3] Ramesh Janardhan Bhombe, Age : 41 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : As above 4] Ganesh S/o Janardhan Bhombe, Age : 36 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : As above .. Appellants VERSUS Sanjay S/o Manikrao Salve, Age : 34 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : Aadgaon Bombhe, Tq.:Bhokardan, Dist. : Jalna .. Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8306 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2009 Janardhan S/o Rakhmaji Bhombe and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS Sanjay S/o Manikrao Salve .. Respondent Mr. D.B. Zodge, Advocate for the appellants- applicants (2) SA. 574.2009 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The appeal is filed suit against the lower appellate Court’s finding that the respondent had proved the fact of his possession over the suit land. On the basis of this finding the appellant is injuncted from causing obstruction and peaceful possession of the respondent. 2] The facts leading to this litigation in short, can be narrated as under:- . The appellants owned the suit property. They sold it to one Satish sometime prior to 6.8.2001. Satish filed a suit against the present appellants for perpetual injunction saying that although the appellants had sold the property to him, they were causing obstruction in his possession. Satish obtained an order of temporary injunction against the appellants in that suit, but the appellants challenged the order and got it set aside sometime prior to June, 2005. In the meantime, Satish had sold the suit land to the present respondent on 18.1.2005 by registered sale deed. Both Satish as well as the respondent got their names mutated as owners and possessors of the suit land. The respondent, thereafter filed suit for perpetual injunction against the present appellants, alleging interfere in his possession. The trial Court (3) SA. 574.2009 dismissed the suit mainly because, the respondent’s predecessor had failed to secure an order of temporary injunction against the appellants. The appellants contended that although they had ostensibly sold the suit land to Satish, the transaction was a mortgage and the sale deed was executed as security for certain loan. They further said that though the sale deed was executed in favour of Satish, they did not deliver possession though the sale deed, mentioned delivery of the possession. The trial Court then dismissed the suit of the respondent. The appellate Court however, reversed the findings. It came to a conclusion that the appellants could not prove their possession. It also recorded that the appellants had failed to prove certain panchanamas recorded by the Tahsildar, showing the appellants' possession of the suit land. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit of the respondent also on the basis of title. 3] It is clear that the question of fact between the parties, was whether the appellants had lawful possession of the suit land and whether the transaction was absolute sale or mortgage. The Courts below on facts, held against the appellants. There appears no other point, much less, a substantial legal question arising in the appeal. The appeal should, therefore fail. The second appeal stands dismissed. (4) SA. 574.2009 4] In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal no. 574 of 2009, civil application no. 8306 of 2009 seeking injunction, also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp