IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2003 Smt.Hausabai Mahadeo Shinde & Ors. ..... ...Appellants. V/s Aba Bandu Shinde & Ors. ..... ..... ...Respondents. Mr.P.J.Shinde, Adv. for the appellants. Mr.Vivek Salunke i/by Mr.P.B.Shah, Adv. for the respondents 1 & 2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 13th FEBRUARY, 2009. PC: This appeal is filed by an unsuccessful defendant against whom a suit for perpetual injunction has been decreed and he is restrained from interfering with possession of the properties of he plaintiff. Both the courts below have held against the defendants/appellants. 2. The plaintiff has purchased the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 24.12.81 from one Smt.Changubai. The sale deed recites that possession of the properties had been delivered to the plaintiff under the said sale deed. Mutation entries are taken pursuant to sale deed and name of plaintiff has been mutated in the place of the vendor Changubai. Revenue and gram panchayat entries are also taken pursuant to the said sale deed and based on title and possession suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant opposed the suit by contending that he is a tenant in the 1 suit properties which are agricultural lands. To the extent of agricultural lands it is an admitted position before this Court that defendant/appellant has lost the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It has been held that he is not the tenant and he is not in possession of the lands. It is interesting to note that Changubai the Vendor of the plaintiff has deposed before the tenancy authorities in those proceedings that she has sold the properties to the plaintiff and delivered the possession thereof. Strangely enough the Vendor of the plaintiff Changubai has appeared as witness for the defendant and has deposed contrary to the contents of the sale deed. Her evidence is obviously barred by section 92 of the Evidence Act. No oral evidence contrary to the written document is admissible. Changubai having admitted execution of the sale deed before the revenue authorities and being signatory to the sale deed cannot depose contrary to the contents of written document and such evidence would not be admissible. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below about title and possession in favour of the plaintiff is illegal. He has also contended that sale deed has not been proved. There is no substance in the contention. The sale deed has been properly proved by producing the certified copy of the sale deed on record which has been exhibited during the course of recording of evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant has no right, title or interest in he properties and thus injunction suit is properly decreed. No substantial question 2 of law emerges for consideration. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence appeal is summarily dismissed. 13.2.2009. 3