1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 395 of 2011 Sk. Imran s/o Khaja Musalman ...Versus... Gajanan Kisan Ingole & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.R. Srivastava Advocate for appellant. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 22.09.2011. Heard. Assailing the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below, Mr.Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the courts below committed an error in not looking to the fact that the appellant is in possession of suit properties and that fact is reflected in the 7/12 extract. He further argued that the appellant is in settled possession of suit property and that is why such possession cannot be disturbed and that is why he had gone for a suit for injunction. He submitted that there is perversity in appreciation of evidence- documentary as well as oral. According to him, 2 the defendant did not enter the witness-box and did not contest the suit and the appellant ought to have succeeded. He also pointed to me 7/12 extract of the year 2009 to show that he is still in possession of suit property. I have gone through the impugned judgments. There is no doubt that there is concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below on the question of lawful possession. The courts below have held that lawful possession has not been proved by the appellant. In my opinion, when lawful possession has not been proved, the court cannot go to protect the possession which is not lawful. This is the first principle which has been rightly applied in the instant case. The courts below concurrently found that the appellant failed to bring the so- called oral lease in respect of the suit property. Admittedly, there are no pleadings specifically pointing out about the oral lease, the time, period and consideration etc. Merely because there is a pleading about the lease, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved that he is in possession pursuant to the lease. The second submission that he is in possession pursuant to the lease in respect of the said property also does not appeal to me since the courts below have concurrently found that in the earlier suit a decree was passed in favour of respondents 2 to 4 in respect of the property belonging to respondent/defendants. 3 That being so, the courts below held that there is no lawful possession. In fact, there could be conflict of rights, inasmuch as the earlier decree cannot be ignored. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Judge /TA/