ssm sm sm 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.1621 OF APPEAL NO.1621 OF APPEAL NO.1621 OF 2005 2005 2005 Mr.Pandurang Pilu Pawar & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Shri Kadir Kalu Shekh. ...Respondent. Mr.M.D.Angal for the Appellants. Mr.Kiran N.Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 17th June, 2008 : 17th June, 2008 : 17th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants states that in the present Second Appeal in which both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that in spite of executing registered Sale Deed of suit land admeasuring 36 gunthas by them in favour of defendant, they sold only 7 gunthas land to defendant and further gave possession of only 7 gunthas land to defendant after registration of Sale Deed dated 04/06/1970, is not correct and the oral evidence ought to have been taken note of and basically the alleged admission of the defendant. 2. This facet according to me, in the present facts and circumstance of the case and as rightly considered by the courts below just cannot be gone into again. Section 92 of the Evidence Act speaks for itself. The parties who wants to put contra oral evidence, under the facts and circumstances, must be pleaded and supported by the ( 2 ) material evidence of the party. In the present case, declaration was sought by the plaintiffs basically for perpetual injunction. Having once failed to prove the issue in respect of declaration, as admittedly burden was upon the plaintiffs, the findings arrived at by the courts below just cannot be said to be perverse. 3. There is no direct challenge made to the sale deed in question at the appropriate time and or within reasonable time. The present suit for perpetual injunction is sought at the later stage of time merely because the defendants permitted to construct some portion of the building that itself cannot be the reason to consider the factor and even aspect of admission in favour of the plaintiffs. The fact that, the defendants resisted the case in all respect including this issue as decided by the Lower Court. This submission also, according to me, is unacceptable in the present circumstances. 4. Taking all this into account, the present Second Appeal is dismissed as there is no substantial questions of law arises. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)