1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 336/2010 (Yamunabai wd/o Fanda Pardhi & others VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri U.K. Bisen, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 3, 2010 . Heard. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the respondent-State had no right to declare that the suit land was in possession of Khemraj and his sons and issue a patta in their favour during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No. 79/1989 in which the respondent i.e. State of Maharashtra and the Special Superintendent and Survey Ammaldar were parties. Previously, a suit was instituted by the appellants- plaintiffs for a declaration that Khemraj and his sons had no right in the suit property and they be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It is stated in the present suit that a temporary 2 injunction order was passed in the previous suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.79/1989 restraining Khemraj and his sons, the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. In the instant suit, it was the case of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the previous suit, the State and its authorities did not have a right to change the entries in the record and to show that the patta was issued in favour of Khemraj and his sons. The plaintiffs stated that the action of the State and its authorities was clearly contemptuous and they did not have a right to change the entires during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No.79/1989. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the civil Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the suit as the plaintiff could have filed an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code against the order passed by the defendant no.3, who was an Officer in the cadre of a Mamlatdar. The defendants further pleaded that they had never issued any Sanad or patta as alleged by the plaintiffs in favour of Khemraj and his sons during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No.79/1989. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the suit filed by 3 the plaintiffs was not tenable and the record also did not indicate that there was a patta issued in favour of Khemraj and his sons by the State and its authorities. The Courts held that there was no change in the map showing Chalta No.57 and 58 which was relied on by the plaintiffs and also the enquiry report showed the possession of the plaintiffs. The Courts held that there was no change in the entries pertaining to the suit land. In such circumstances, the Courts held that there was no reason to grant a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs that the State did not have any right to hold that Khemraj and his sons were in possession of the suit property and issue a patta in their favour during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No.79/1989. It is also notable that the plaintiffs had filed an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code which was returned to the plaintiff on the ground that it was not intelligible. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE