1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2009 Maheboobkhan s/o Lalkhan & others Appellants Versus Bhagwan s/o Eknath Shinde & others Respondents Mr. V.S. Bedre with Mr.K.M. Nagarkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for the respondents. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming declaration to the effect that they are the absolute owner of agricultural land as well as for possession of the property. According to the plaintiffs, the property has been purchased from one Pustaram Marwadi and on he basis of purchase effected by the plaintiffs, they are in possession. Defendants having no concern have asserted their possession ousting the plaintiffs out of possession. Plaintiffs 2 as such claim that they be put in possession over the disputed property. 3 Defendants have controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. According to them, the suit property was mortgaged in favour of predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and as such suit came to be presented in 1358 fasli. Predecessor in title of the plaintiffs admitted the contentions raised by the defendants in the suit. As such, consent decree was passed. In execution of the consent decree, defendants were put in possession in 1358 Fasli and since then, they are in possession of the disputed property. 4 After receiving evidence led by the parties, learned trial Judge was not convinced as regards merit of contentions raised by the plaintiffs. As such, trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dt. 17-10-1994. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed by the first appellate court while disposing of Regular Civil Appeal no. 34/1996. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Plaintiffs have placed copies of Pahani Patrak on record which show possession of father of the plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs have failed to 3 place on record the sale-deed alleged to have been executed by one Marrwadi in their favour. Defendants have placed reliance on the copies of plaint in Regular Civil Suit no. RCS no. 279/1/1358 Fasli as well as consent written statement filed by plaintiffs at exh. 139 so also consent decree passed at exh. 141. It also transpires that the defendants were put in possession in execution of the consent decree passed by the civil court. Thus, defendants have established their source of possession. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to establish their case in respect of title over the suit property. The courts below have adopted reasonable approach in the matter. View adopted by the courts below cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa27.09.odt