IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2008 Bharat Dnyanoba Shinde & Ors...... ...... ..Appellants V/s Vagha Eknath Joshi ...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.Amit M. Shete, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.A.J.Joshi, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 11th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. Admit. Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: 1)Whether the learned Judge of the appellate court could have relied upon the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act when the respondent-plaintiff filed suit simpliciter for injunction and not for possession. 2)Whether finding of the lower appellate court about respondent-plaintiff's possession of the suit land is perverse in the absence of pleading or evidence on record to that effect especially when it was admitted that possession was delivered to the appellant-defendant on 17.11.94 in pursuance of “Sathe- Khat” and there is nothing on record to show that possession was re-delivered to the plaintiff. 11.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1433 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2008 Bharat Dnyanoba Shinde & Ors...... ...... ..Appellants V/s Vagha Eknath Joshi ...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.Amit M. Shete, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.A.J.Joshi, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 11th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted. Civil application stands disposed of. 11.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.)