1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.385 OF 2010. Ramchandra S/o Nivrutti Gaysamudre ... Appellant. Versus Ujjwala W/o Arun Maskar ... Respondent. ... Mr.Sujeet Joshi, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for simpliciter injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. 2 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that though the sale deed shows the name of Raghunath as one of the purchaser but in fact, his name was nominally introduced, the sale also does not specify the apportionment of shares between two persons. In fact, the plaintiff by oral evidence has proved his case. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. 4. Per contra, Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the present defendant had filed Civil suit bearing RCS No. 59/2005, wherein the injunction has been granted in favour of the present defendants and against the plaintiff. The said order of injunction is also confirmed in appeal. In light of the same, it can not be held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. He further 3 submitted that the plaintiff's father had already sold his share of 5 gunthas of land to other person and in light of the same, he has got no right to claim any injunction. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts. It is not disputed that the present defendant has earlier filed RCS No.59/2005, seeking injunction against the present appellant. The same came to be decreed. The present appellant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed and the order of injunction in favour of the present defendant was confirmed. Moreover, it has also come on record that the original sale deed was executed by Narayan Shinde in favour of Nivrutti i.e. plaintiff's father and Raghunath who is the predecessor-in-title of the present defendant. Raghunath during his life time sold his share in favour of Ram Haral, Vishnu Harale, Vinod Khande and Rajesh Rajankar vide registered sale deed dated 27.3.1995. The said sale-deed is at Exh. 4 72. In light of all these facts it can not be held that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. No error in the judgments passed by the Courts below. The Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is dismissed. However,there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa38510