1 SA 121.2011 ARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. V.M.Kagane,Advocate for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed Suit for possession of plot nos. 39 and 40. In the said Suit, the plaintiff had also sought injunction. The trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of delivery of possession. The defendants preferred Appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. V.M.Kagane, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that in fact, the 2 SA 121.2011 Suit itself was not maintainable. In the same Suit, the relief of possession and injunction could not have been claimed. The Court below has not taken into consideration this aspect and passed the decree for possession. The learned counsel contends that in fact the sale deed executed by Hiralal Ingle in favour of plaintiff was not at all proved. In absence of valid proof of the same, it could not have been held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the present appellants had purchased the suit property by registered sale deed from said Hiralal in the year 1977. By virtue of the said sale deed, they became the owner of the property and no decree for possession could have been passed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. The Courts below have granted relief of possession. The plaintiff can claim multiple reliefs, but at the stage of trial has to restrict their case. The plaintiff has restricted the case to the relief of possession. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have concurrently held that the plaintiff has proved that she has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed 3 SA 121.2011 from the original owner Hiralal in the year 1996. The evidence led in that regard has been found to be reliable by both the Courts. It is not the case of perverse appreciation of evidence. No doubt, the defendants have also purchased suit property from said Hiralal, but at the time when said Hiralal sold the property to the present appellants, he had divested himself to title by executing registered instrument of sale in favour of the plaintiff. As such, on the said date, he did not have any title to pass on to the defendants. 6. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 121.2011