1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2001 Jairam s/o Lobha Phad .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sitaram Yadavrao Gaiwal & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri H.B. Bondar, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Original defendant has approached this court raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Regular Civil Suit no. 311/1987 was presented by the respondents / original plaintiffs claiming possession of the suit open space admeasuring 16 cubits X 26 cubits situate at village Khadgaon, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. Contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have forcibly dispossessed them from the suit site on 20-5-1987. Plaintiffs had earlier presented civil suit against the defendants which was decided in their favour. Plaintiffs had also presented execution petition and in execution petition they were put in possession on 28-3-1973. However, after death of father of the defendant nos. 1 to 5, they again started obstructing possession 2 of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented suit for injunction but application for temporary injunction was rejected and, taking benefit of that, defendants obtained forcible possession of the suit premises on 20-5-1987. Defendant nos. 2 to 10 failed to present written statement. However, defendant no. 1 filed written statement and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. According to him, his deceased father had purchased the suit premises in the year 1965. According to him, since sale-deed his father was in possession and after his demise, he is in continuous possession of the same. The learned trial Judge after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their case and, as such, granted decree in their favour. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of original defendant no. 1 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 115/1996 which came to be heard and disposed of by the II Additional District Judge, Parbhani who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dt. 30-6-2001. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by both the courts below. Plaintiffs have proved their entitlement to the property on the strength of decree passed by the competent civil court in Regular Civil Suit no. 150/69. Plaintiffs were also put in possession over the property in execution of darkhast bearing R.D. no. 9/1973. However, it appears that the plaintiffs have been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. Trial court, thus, has not committed any error in directing restitution of possession. Arguments advanced are essentially the matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. 3 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa435.01.odt