1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2008 Smt. Rakhama Shankar Chougule & Ors. .. Appellants (Org.Defendants) Versus Shivaji Dattu Chougule & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Surel S.Shah, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is the Second Appeal filed by the original defendants. To state in brief, one Dnyanu Ananda Chougule was the tenant of Khanderao Dharmappa Jirage in respect of agricultural lands. Dnyanu died in 1962 leaving behind 2 sons, viz. Dattu and Shankar and 3 2 daughters. The plaintiffs are the L.rs of Dattu,while the defendants are the L.rs of Shankar. Dattu died in 1987 and Shankar died in 1991. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Dnyanu, Shankar and his 3 sisters refused to continue to be tenants and therefore, Dattu alone continued to cultivate the land as a tenant. Some agreement took place between Dattu and the landlord and Dattu purchased 2 acres of land from eastern side and 11 -3/4 gunthas from western side of Survey No.257 from the landlord under a registered sale deed dated 23.7.1968. The remaining land out of survey No.257 was surrendered by him in favour of the landlord. Out of the land purchased by him, he had sold land survey No.257/3 to a third party and out of Survey No.257/2, 74 Ares of land was acquired by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation from him, leaving 8 gunthas of land out of survey No.257/2 in his possession. According to the plaintiffs, Dattu permitted Shankar to occupy the said 8 gunthas of land. There are two houses situted on the suit land belonging to the plaintifs. The plaintiffs called upon the defendants to vacate the suit land and houses and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs. On their refusal, the plaintiffs filed suit for possession of the suit land with the houses. The defendants contended that Shankar was in joint possession along with Dattu as a tenant. However, the 3 trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.153 of 2003. That appeal came to be dismissed. Thereore, the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal. 2. There is a concurrent finding by both the Courts below that Shankar had refused to cultivate the land as a tenant and therefore Dattu alone was recorded as a tenant. Not only this, Dattu had entered into an agreeent with the landlord and surrendered some portion of the land out of survey No.257 to the landlord and the remaining land, which was in two parts was purchased by him under a sale deed. The Courts below held that Dattu himself disposed of land Survey No.257/3 under a registered sale deed and out of sureyNo.257/2, Kolhpur Municipal Corporation had acquired 74 gunthas land from him. Both the Courts below held that Dattu alone was in possession of 8 gunthas of land and he had permitted Shankar to occupy the same and thus the defendants were in permissive possession. It appears that the defendants had also preferred an appeal before the Revenue Authority against the order under which Shankar was excluded from the tenancy. That order has become final. 4 3. Taking into considertion the above circumstances,I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 4. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)