(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2009 Sushilabai w/o. Baburao Mandale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhusaniwadi, Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad, .. Appellant at present at Turori, (Original Taluka : Omerga. plaintiff) versus 1. Harishchandra s/o. Tukaram Mandale, Aged : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhusaniwadi, Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad. 2. Babu s/o. Tukaram Mandale, .. Respondents Aged : 66 years, (Original Occupation : Service defendants) (Secretary) Kharedi Vikrisangh, R/o. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ....................... (2) Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6TH MAY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Omerga, dated 30th April 1994, and by the first appellate court, dated 27-6-2001, are questioned by the plaintiff in the Second Appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff is, she being widow of Baburao, is in exclusive possession of the property Survey No. 426, admeasuring 1 Hecatre 26 Are, situated at village Bhusaniwadi (Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad) and the defendant has no concern with the suit property. She canvassed, after death of Baburao, relevant mutation entries are recorded by the revenue authorities in her favour. (3) 4. As against this, the defendant set up a claim that he had a sale purchase transaction with Baburao by virtue of sale deed dated 6-4-1976, certified copy of which was tendered at Exhibit 105. The defendant also brought on record, the file from Revenue Department / Tahsil office, bearing No. 1988/ROR/WS/456. There is no controversy that the plaintiff is widow of Baburao. However, that by itself will not establish that Baburao had no authority to execute the sale deed or dispose of the property. Non-production of original sale deed, by itself, will not vitiate the claim of the defendant to be owner based on the document. The evidence of the defendant is supported by D.W.2 Arjun Kamble, D.W.3 Baburao Narsing Birajdar, D.W.4 Pralhad Jyotiba Jadhav and D.W.5 Babu Tukaram Mandale, about the sale transaction and the possession. 5. The courts have also found that the revenue authorities exceeded in their jurisdiction while effecting mutation entry of the plaintiff, as there was already an application for mutating the name of defendant no.1 in the record of rights on 4-4-1988, which application was not decided by the competent authority. This is so in the above referred file of learned Tahsildar. In the fact situation, the observation of the court, the purchaser, defendant, to be in possession of the property, based on title and the relief of perpetual injunction (4) sought by the plaintiff, is not tenable as plaintiff has failed to prove her possession and legal ownership on the suit land. The findings recorded by both the courts are in tune with the record, which does not warrant interference. 6. The Second Appeal sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa78