1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8722 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2006 Hanmantrao s/o Vithalrao Chikalpalle ...Applicant Versus Laxman s/o Manika Chikalpalle & Anr ...Respondents ..... Mr. J.M. Murkute, advocate for the applicant ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 The applicant has taken out this application praying for stay to the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2004 passed by the learned IIIrd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2003 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokar in Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 2000. 2 The appellant instituted a suit for declaration that he is owner of the suit land in question and sought injunction against the defendants 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession. The trial court dismissed the suit against which the appeal was preferred that was also dismissed. Against these two orders, the original plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 3 Mr. Murkute, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court has admitted the second appeal on 9.1.2009 as it raises substantial questions of law. Accordingly, those questions of law are framed. He further submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and therefore, since the appeal is admitted the plaintiff has made out strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. 4 I have heard Shri Murkute, learned counsel for the appellant at length. The courts below have concurrently held that the appellant has not established his ownership in respect of the suit land. The courts below also held that the appellant has not established that he is in possession of the suit land. Considering the findings recorded by the courts below, I am not inclined to grant any interim order. Hence, civil application is rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/