1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.627/2007 Ramdas Nana Gadekar and others. ..Appellants -VERSUS- Gajanan Nivrutti Gadekar. ..Respondent ......... Mr.A.P.Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.A. Bhagwat, Advocate for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12th MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The subject matter of this appeal is land admeasuring 34 R from Gat No.383 in regard to which the respondent/plaintiff claimed declaration and perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the appellants/defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's possession over the said land. In the Written Statement, the defendants have conceded that he does not claim any right, title and interest in regard to 20 R land from the said Gat No.383. Thus, the real dispute is in regard to the land admeasuring 14 R only. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit whereas the first Appellate Court decreed the suit 2 and granted perpetual injunction prayed for, by the respondent herein. 2. Perused the judgment under challenge. It is not in dispute that the common ancestor is one Govind who had two sons by name Nivrutti and Nana. There was partition effected between the two brothers Nivrutti and Nana. The plaintiff is son of Nivrutti whereas the defendants are the sons of Nana. The plaintiff has mainly relied on mutation entry which is in favour of the plaintiff whereas it is the case of the appellants/defendants that Nivrutti had permitted the defendants to cultivate the land to the extent of 14 R, thus, the plaintiff cannot claim any right qua the said land. The First Appellate Court after considering the evidence on record, has found in favour of the plaintiff that the land to the extent of 34 R land from Gat No.383 has fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The appellants/defendants mainly placed reliance on Exhibit-64 which is an affidavit purported to have been filed by the father of the plaintiff viz. Nivrutti before the Tahasildar. The said document was also tendered in evidence. Though the Trial Court has dismissed the suit, it has discarded the said document where under the father of plaintiff by name Nivrutti has relinquished the right in favour of the defendants to the extent of 14 R land. The ground on which both the Courts below have rejected the said document is that the contents thereof are not proved coupled with the fact that the said document bears only a thumb impression without there being any attestation about the said thumb impression 3 being that of the father of plaintiff. It has been held that there is no convincing evidence on record to hold that the defendants are cultivating 14 R land that too with the permission of Nivrutti. 3. Perused the impugned judgment, the same does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration, hence, the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed in laminee. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not really worried about rejection of the appeals to the extent of 34 R land from Gat No.383 as he has claimed right in respect of 14 R land from Gat No.383, however, he submits that rejection of these appeals would induce the plaintiff to make claim over the adjoining land which is recorded only in the name of the defendants. The said apprehension is wholly ill founded in view of the fact that only land admeasuring 34 R from Gat No.383 is the subject matter of the suit and rejection of these appeals in no way would prejudice the claim of the appellants/defendants in regard to the other lands which already stand in their names. Hence, the appeals are summarily dismissed. JUDGE