-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 Balasaheb Gulabrao Pol ...Appellant V/s. Appasaheb Gulabrao Mane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.J. Shinde, Advocate, for the Appellant. . Mr.Dilip Bodke, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Shinde, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel for the -: 2 :- respondents. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. His suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was decreed by the trial court. The respondents preferred an Appeal before the lower appellate court challenging the trial court’s decree and by the impugned judgment and order, the lower appellate court allowed the Appeal and the appellant’s suit was dismissed. 3. The appellant claims title to the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 26th September, 1994 on 8th December, 1994. The respondents claim that they are tenants in the suit property. The appellate court recorded finding that the sale deeds under which the appellant claims title are executed without seeking mandatory prior permission under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as well as Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act and, therefore, held that the sale deeds are not legal. The appellate court after appreciating evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land and actually the respondents are in possession of the suit land. This finding of -: 3 :- possession is not shown to be contrary to the evidence on record. 4. The finding of fact cannot be interfered in the Second Appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Appeal and the Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application No.1038 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [RANJIT V. MORE, J.]