1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.360 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : June 28, 2010 1. Heard Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed by original defendants against whom, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule had passed decree of perpetual injunction in R.C.S. No. 182 of 2005 on 30.12.2008 restraining them from disturbing peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff over suit property. The said judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned District Judge-2, Dhule, on 28.1.2010 in R.C.A. No.18 of 2009. 3. Briefly stated, respondent-original plaintiff came with a case that he had purchased survey No. 19/1 (new survey No. 19/1-A) admeasuring 4 Acre e 32 gunthas 2 (i.e. 1 Hectare 91 R.) from defendants by sale deed dated 24.5.1979 for Rs.14,000/=. It is stated that on eastern side of plaintiff's land, there is cart road and the land purchased by the plaintiff is excluding said cart road. It is also stated that the land was measured. The defendants without any reason are attempting to encroach upon plaintiff's land from the western side and, therefore, plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction. 4. Defendants filed written statement at Exhibit 14 and denied that they were making any encroachment and stated that cart road was not included in the land sold. According to the defendants, they did not sell portions of 75 R. and 85 R. which is a pot Kharab (total 1 hectare 60 R.) out of the suit land which fact is suppressed by the plaintiff and, therefore, suit be dismissed. 5. The trial court and the first appellate court considered the evidence and material on record. Both courts have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has purchased suit land as described in the plaint and is in 3 possession thereof. In fact, sale deed in respect of 1 hectare 92 R. is not at all disputed by the defendants. There is evidence of plaintiff at Exh.55. He also produced documentary evidence, such as, sale deed (Exhibit 60), mutation entry (Exh.54), revenue record (Exh.53). Defendant No.2 Maharu (Exh.59) in his cross examination admitted that the plaintiff has become owner of the land by sale deed since 1979. 6. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made and on perusing the impugned judgment, in my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact. 7. In the result, this second appeal stands dismissed. pnd/sa360.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)