1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.823 OF 2003 Jijabai Tukaram Ghuge ..... Appellant vs. Mahadu Baban Dighule & Ors...... Respondents Mr.M.M. Sathaye, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 7th December, 2009. PC : 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1983 claiming that she purchased portion of gat no.474 admeasuring 81 R falling to the share of Sopan Baban Dighule, by registered sale deed dated 31st December 1977 and since then has been in possession of the land and cultivating the same. Gat No.474 was owned by Sopan along with his brother i.e. original respondents no.1 and 2 and respondent no.3. The appellant alleged in the plaint that after purchase of the property, when the necessary mutation in the revenue records were carried out to divide the property, as gat no. 474/1 and 474/2, there was an error in the mutation. The revenue records show the property in possession of the appellant as gat No. 474/2, whereas actually the property in possession of the appellant is gat no.474/1. This mistake in the revenue records continued as the respondents failed to co-operate with the appellant in getting 2 revenue records corrected. It is further alleged in the plaint that the appellant learnt that the respondents are considering sale of gat no.474/1, which is owned and possessed by the appellant. Therefore she filed the suit for injunction simplicitor to restrain the respondents from selling or creating any third party rights over the land gat No.474/1 and 474/2 until such time, as the correction in the revenue records is carried out and also from taking any step obstructing the title and possession of the appellant in respect of the land owned by her. Original respondents no.1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and contest the suit after service of summons upon them. Respondent no.3, however filed his written statement disputing the claims made by the appellant as regards the title as well as possession of the land. He contended that the land at gat no.474, admeasures 2 Hectare, 8 yards. Therefore Sopan could not have sold land admeasuring 81R out of gat no.474 as his share therein was limited to 59½ R. He further alleged that husband of the appellant is a local leader. He is also friendly with the revenue officers and Talathi. By taking advantage of his acquaintance and his position, he has got the false entries in the revenue records made and shown land admeasuring 81R out of gat no. 474 as the land owned by him. 2. When the parties went for evidence, respondent no.3 did not lead any evidence. During the course of the trial, the appellant with the consent of respondent no.3 gave up two contentions, one based on her claim of having spent Rs.7,000/- for improvement of the 3 land and having dug a well in the Eastern portion of the field and the claim of respondent no.3 that the well is in joint possession of all the brothers. The learned trial Judge after recording the request vide a joint pursis at Exhibit 46, passed an order that for issues no.2 and 7 framed in the case, no findings need be given and the evidence led in support or rebuttal of the issues shall not be considered. The trial Court as well as the appeal Court appreciated the fact that considering the four sharers for the property admeasuring 2 H, 80R, the land falling to the share of Sopan could not have been 81R and therefore disbelieved the claim of the appellant as regards ownership of the land admeasuring 81R coupled with the contention that there is a mistake in the revenue records showing possession of portion of the property. As regards the obstruction, the plaint as filed does not contain any particulars whatsoever of obstruction to the ownership rights of the appellant. The husband of the appellant however, in his evidence stated that the few days prior to filing of the suit, respondent no.3 had visited the field and indicated that he desired to sell the land in his possession. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant suit. 3. Mr.Sathaye, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the claim of respondents that Sopan was entitled to only 59.2 R. of the land at gat no.474 is to be accepted, the Court below ought to have protected, the appellant’s share atleast to that extent. Since, there was no evidence of any obstruction to the possession of the appellant, there is no question of granting any 4 relief of injunction. Even if the appellant, on the basis of registered sale-deed and the change in the revenue records is to be treated as the owner of the suit land, there is no need to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at the Court below. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.1260 of 2003 does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)