1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 193/2008 Hariprasad Keshaoprasad Shukla ..vs.. Satyanarayan Shaligram Choube & Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Tathod, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9 th JANUARY, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit for injunction to restrain the defendant/present respondents from transferring the suit property and also to protect his possession. He claims that he was occupying the portion of suit property as tenant of one Tatya Deshmukh. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the said tenancy was not established and, in any case, area out of the suit property, in occupation of the present appellant as tenant, was not brought on record. Therefore, the suit has been dismissed. 3. Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the respondents did not produce any sale 2 deed on record to show that they are entitled to deal with the suit property. He pointed out that from the Municipal records, produced before the trial Court, it appears that the defendants had purchased only about 13 X 10 ft. and they had encroached upon remaining portion and, therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed. 4. Mr. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, states that the appellant/plaintiff is claiming to be the tenant of the suit property and, therefore, he cannot restrain the owner thereof from selling the property. He invited my attention to the concurrent finding that the tenancy as also interest, if any, and possession of the appellant as tenant has not been established. It is also contended that the map sought to be produced on record is also dealt with in paragraph no. 11 by the trial Court and it is apparent that the map is also not sufficient to prove the contention of the appellant in the matter. 3 5. I have gone through both the judgments. The appellant filed suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with the suit property. He claimed to be tenant of one Tatya Deshmukh and he also claimed that the said Tatya Deshmukh was the original owner thereof. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the present respondents are not the owners. They cannot confer legal and valid title upon anybody. Perusal of both the judgments reveal that both the Courts have correctly considered the evidence on record and found that the appellant could not establish his tenancy as also area of tenanted premises. In any case, it is to be noted that the present appellant/plaintiff is not claiming ownership from Tatya Deshmukh. If respondents are claiming themselves to be the owners on the basis of sale deed and they want to sell the property, it is for the new purchaser to find out whether they are legally entitled to do so. If after due enquiry, the purchaser purchases the property, the persons like appellant, 4 who claim to be the tenants, may become tenant of the said purchaser. I do not find any substantial question of law arising in the second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale