1 S.A.NO. 736/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 736/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7520/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6766/2011 NARAYAN S/O SONA NIKALJE AND OTHERS VS. GANAPATI S/o KISHANRAO PATIL Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for respondent B. Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent A & C. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 13th June, 2011. ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Although there are no concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the respondent / plaintiff could show his title and possession of the suit land, the appellants / original defendants would not succeed in getting this appeal admitted. The respondent filed the suit in 1994 for perpetual injunction on the ground that he had purchased the suit property in 1978 and has been in possession of the same since then. The appellants tried to oppose the suit on the ground that they are in actual possession and that their father Sona was the protected tenant in respect of the suit land. They further contended that their father Sona the protected tenant - could not have been lawfully evicted from the suit land. The documents on record clearly show that he was dispossessed from the suit land way back in 2 S.A.NO. 736/2009 1976. It is the case of the appellants that Sona was not even alive in the year 1976. They say that Sona died in 1970 and therefore, the record showing that Sona surrendered possession of the suit land to the original landlord, cannot be believed. In a suit of this nature, such inquiry is not possible. Since 1978 the appellants did not take any legal step either in tenancy Court or anywhere else to assert that they are successors of a protected tenant etc. They did not get the records corrected. They allowed the record to show that they are not in possession. This position continued. This suit was filed in 1994. The record shows that since 1978 onwards till the filing of the suit, the respondent / plaintiff was in possession as owner. In such a situation, the respondent should succeed in getting the relief which he has sought. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal should therefore, fail. The appeal is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/June13/sa736.09