1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 253 OF 2010 Gayatridevi w/o Govindprasad Baheti.. APPELLANT VERSUS Omprakash S/o Laxminarayan Indani & another ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri A.A. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants Shri B.G. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit initially for injunction and afterwards amended it, and prayed for possession, on the ground that he is dispossessed after filing of the suit. The suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. Appellate Court also confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The present appellant 2 has assailed the said Judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant contends that appellant is having lease hold rights over the suit property, executed by the heirs of the original Inamdar under registered instrument of lease for 99 years. The said lease- deed is executed in the year 1999. According to the leraned Counsel, the lease-deed specify the boundaries which shows the rights of the appellant. 3. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the description of the plot has not been properly given, if the boundaries of the alleged lease-deed in favour of appellant are perused it resembles plot No. 7. In an early litigation in Civil Application 308 of 1991, it is already held that the lease hold rights in respect of plot Nos. 5 to 9 are held by Nandlal since 1945. According to learned counsel both the Courts have concurrently on appreciation of evidence, has come to the correct conclusion. 3 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts below and the lease-deed. The plot number is not stated in the lease-deed, but the boundaries have been given. The Courts have considered the various instruments of lease and have come to the conclusion that the boundaries as are detailed in the lease-deed filed by the plaintiff resembles plot No. 7, and since 1945 Nandlal hold plot Nos. 5 to 9 and even it has been accepted in judicial proceedings. 5. If, the said plots were already held by the Nandlal since 1945, then it cannot be assumed that the heirs of the original defendants could have leased the suit property to the plaintiffs in the year 1999. 5. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law arises, as such the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and same is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 253.10 SA/241110