1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.17/2011 Mathurabai Ramkrushna Bagade and another Vs. Hari Dattu Devkar =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 17/2/2011. Heard Shri Sable, learned counsel for the appellants. By the above Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12/1999 by which the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1999 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.59/1987 came to be confirmed. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for possession and injunction. The property in dispute is Gat No.267 bearing old Survey no. 96/3. In respect of the said suit property, there was an earlier proceeding bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 166/1980 which was decreed on 25.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff. In execution of the said decree, the possession of the said suit property was given to the plaintiff. The cause for filing the said Regular Civil Suit No. 59/1987 was that the 2 appellants herein had dispossessed the plaintiff on 30.9.1986. Both the parties led evidence as regards their claim of title to the suit property. Both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record have held that the plaintiff had acquired to the title of the property in view of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit NO.166/1980 and that the plaintiff was handed over possession of the suit property in execution. Insofar as the possession was concerned, both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in execution. However, the defendants had obstructed his possession by taking the jowar crop which the plaintiff had grown. The decree of the Trial Court for possession has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on the aforesaid aspects, in my view, the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar