: 1 : sa.618.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.618 OF 2008 Sukhdeo Ganpati Deokar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Bajrang Bapu Mane & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.N. Kachare for the Appellants Mr.A.A. Garge for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of the trial Court i.e. in Regular Civil Suit No.251 of 1991 and of the appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.391 of 1994. By concurrent findings of fact, both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff had proved that the defendants had obstructed their peaceful possession of the suit property. The Courts below accepted the plaintiff's contention that they were the owners of the suit property by a virtue of a sale deed in their favour which was executed in 1946. Both the Courts below have accepted the contents of the sale deed as the defendants did not dispute the same, except for the measurements mentioned in the sale deed. : 2 : sa.618.2011 2. The learned advocate for the appellant argued that the Courts had erred in applying section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to the sale deed and concluding that it was proved because it was an old document. He submitted that section 90 only deals with the presumption so far as the execution of the document is concerned and not its contents. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Gangamma & Ors. vs. Shivalingaiah, (2005) 9 SCC 359 to buttress this submission. As mentioned earlier, the contents were disputed only so far as the measurements of suit property was concerned. A Court Commissioner was appointed and he has submitted his report indicating the measurements of the suit property. The Courts below have relied on this report and passed the impugned orders. 3. The learned advocate then submitted that in a suit for an easementary right, the title of the property cannot be decided. It is obvious that the suit was filed for an injunction against the defendants from disturbing the possession of the suit property which according to the plaintiffs belonged to them. In these circumstances, the Courts below have granted the relief to the appellants. : 3 : sa.618.2011 4. No substantial questions of law arise for determination by this Court. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Application No.1641 of 2008 is also dismissed. 6. On an oral request made by the learned advocate for the appellant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)