1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.524/2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mrs. Fatima Kazi h/f Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for appellant. Mr.V.S. Borkar, Advocate for resp.1 & 2 [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Date : 05th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel. Dismissal of R.C.S. No. 104/1991 by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Paithan, was challenged before learned District Judge, in R.C.A. No. 56/2003 and the plaintiff lost. 2 Now, the plaintiff questioned the same. The learned counsel while elaborating her submissions, urged the substantial question of law in the matter would be, (a) there was no proper frame of issues which has prejudiced the plaintiff (b) The appreciation of 2 evidence is not in legal frame. 3 The above contentions have indeed rebellion approach against the plaintiff as there was a sale deed produced by the defendants at Ex. 6 and proved also. The defence indicated the purchase consideration, by one of the brothers. There could not be any property left over by the plaintiff after being executed by Sk. Badshah, in favour of the defendants. 4 The mutation entries at Ex. 47 and 48, 50 was also showing such possession of Sk. Badshah. The plaintiff urged that injunction be clamped against the defendants, not to disturb his possession. However, the Court found, the plaintiff provenly was not in possession and consequently, not entitled for the relief sought. In the para 1 of the plaint Gat no. 69 is referred, however, in prayer clause, he sought relief for Gat no. 68, which could not be consolidation of old survey nos. 3 39 and 47 or Gat no. 89 converted by their amalgamation. 5 Non-framing of issues, has not proved a betrayal against plaintiff as it has been demonstrated that plaintiff was conscious of the defence and evidence was adduced. No substantial question of law to interfere. Second appeal dismissed. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa524.09