IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.610 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.610 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.610 OF 2004. Anand Narsinha Rairikar & Ors. ...Appellants Versus. Sahebrao Balasaheb Shinde & Anr. ...Respondents Shri S.A.Mudbidri for the Appellants. Shri Suresh Sabrad for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th MARCH, 2008. : 18th MARCH, 2008. : 18th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their alleged possession over the suit property bearing Gat No.562 situated at Rihe, Taluka Mulshi , District Pune. According to the case of the appellants the suit property was an inam land and the father of the appellants was the occupant of the inam land. It is the case of the appellants that they deposited the necessary occupancy price for regrant of the inam land. However, regrant was made by the authorities in the name of one Damodar Shinde, the predecessor of the respondents. The submission is that the appellants were in possession and therefore only on the basis of mutation entry on the basis of an order of regrant, the appellants cannot be dispossessed. : 2 : 2 : 2 : 2. After having heard the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find no merit in the Second Appeal. There is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the name of Damodar and two others was mutated as tenants in respect of the suit property. On 08th December, 1993 there was an order of regrant passed in favour of the Damodar Shinde on the basis of which entries were made in revenue records. 3. On the basis of documentary evidence on record, the Courts below have held that the appellants have failed to prove their title and possession. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. 4. Civil Application No.666 of 2004 does not survive and the same is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.