1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 923 OF 2002 Shivaji Nivrutti Suryawanshi .. Appellant V/s. Smt.Parubai Jyoti Suryavanshi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. R.N.Sanghavi for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 30TH, 2008. P.C. This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2000 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.508 of 1989 by which the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 1984 came to be confirmed. 2 2. The Appellant herein is the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 1984 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs in respect of land Survey No.140/4 admeasuring 30 Gunthas of Village Kerade Wangii, Taluka Khanapur, District – Sangli. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the said land in question originally belonged to one Tanabai Suryawanshi. The said Tanabai was the sister-in-law of the Plaintiff. It was further the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiffs husband was inducted in the said suit land as a tenant on crop share basis. The Plaintiffs husband Jyoti Suryavanshi cultivated the suit land prior to 1957 and was in cultivation as such on the tillers day i.e. On 1st April, 1957. After the death of her husband, the Plaintiff was in cultivation and the tillers day on account of the fact that the Plaintiff was a widow was postponed in terms of the provisions of the B.T.A.L.Act, 1948. The name of the Plaintiffs husband Jyoti Suryawanshi was recorded in the Revenue record. Pursuant to the heirship enquiry, the Plaintiffs name came to be 3 recorded as owner of the suit property. It is further the case of the Plaintiffs that in the year 1979 she acquired knowledge that the said Tanabai had transferred the said suit land by sale in favour of one Ramchandra Mohite by registered sale deed which was executed some time in the year 1968. The said Ramchandra Mohite sold the said suit land to the present Defendant No.1. According to the Plaintiff, the sale deeds executed by Tanabai and thereafter Ramchandra Mohite are void in the teeth of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land, 1948. Thereafter, the Defendant No.1 get his name mutated in the Revenue record on the basis of the sale deed in his favour which was challenged by the Plaintiffs before the Revenue Authorities which proceedings were ultimately decided by the District Collector concerned in the Plaintiffs favour. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Revenue Authorities in respect of the said entry made in favour of the Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.1 started obstructing the Plaintiff as a result of which the Plaintiff was constrained to file the said suit. 4 3. It is the case of the Defendant No.1 and 2 that the said Tanabai never inducted the Plaintiffs husband Jyoti Suryawanshi as a tenant in the suit land and that the said Tanabai was in actual possession of the suit land and that the said Tanabai has executed the sale deed in favour of the Defendant No.1 Mohite who is in turned executed a sale deed in favour of the Defendant No.2. It is the case of the Defendant that the said Jyoti Suryawanshi had by manipulation got his name entered in the Revenue record. 4. The parties went to trial and on the basis of the evidence that was before it, the Trial Court decreed the said suit. The Trial Court held that the Plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land continuously and uninterruptedly since prior to 1967. The Trial Court held that the Defendants could not substantiate the case that they were in possession pursuant to the sale deed executed in their favour. The Trial Court therefore decreed the said suit and granted perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff by Judgment and order dated 19th August, 1989. 5 5. Aggrieved by the said decreeing of the suit, the Defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.508 of 1989 by Judgment and order dated 25th September, 1989 the said Appeal came to be dismissed and resultantly the decree passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court as regards the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the Defendants has failed to prove their possession of the suit land, which possession they had allegedly acquired pursuant to the sale deed. 6. In so far as the contention of the Defendants that in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs claimed to be a tenant of the land in question, a reference to the Tenancy Authorities under section 85A was warranted. The Lower Appellate Court relying upon the pronouncement of this Court reported in 1985, Maharashra L.J. Page 311 in the matter of Baliram Maruti Satvekar V/s.Dadu Govind Tipugade and Ors and the Judgment reported in 1987 MH.L.J. Page 628 in the matter of Marybai Marshal Pimenta & 6 Ors. V/s. Ramnath Gopal Bhuskute & Ors. held that in a suit simplicitor for perpetual injunction such a reference was not warranted. 7. Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact as regards the possession of the Plaintiffs qua the suit land. Both the Courts below have also held that a reference to the Tenancy Court under section 85A of the B.P.A.L.Act was not warranted considering the nature of the suit concerned. 8. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.1242 of 2002 does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J.] 7