-: 1 :- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.136 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.136 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.136 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2004 Chandrakant Ganesh Hajare ...Appellant V/s. Shivram Krishna Kasar, Deceased, . Thru’ Sharmila S. Karekar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.G.S. Keluskar, Advocate, for the Appellant. . Mr.M.D. Parab, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. : R.V. MORE, J. : R.V. MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Keluskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Parab, learned counsel for the -: 2 :- respondents. 2. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent filed suit for injunction and also for possession. The trial court partly decreed the suit and the appellant was restrained from disturbing the possession over the suit land except the "gharpad portion" admeasuring about 5.3 R. The respondent being aggrieved, preferred an Appeal before the lower appellate court. The appellant did not file any cross objection. The appellate court found that the respondent proved ownership over the entire suit property including the disputed land of 5.3 gunthas. The lower appellate court further held that the appellant could not prove his case of adverse possession in respect of the disputed land admeasuring about 5.3 gunthas. The appellate court accordingly modified the trial court’s decree and the appellant was restrained from disturbing respondent’s possession over the suit land including the disputed area of 5.3 gunthas. The appellant also directed to deliver vacant possession of the disputed area of 5.3 gunthas to the respondent. -: 3 :- 3. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the impugned judgment and order. He also could not point out entitlement of the appellant to the disputed land of 5.3 gunthas. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the case. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal and the Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application No.320 of 2004 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [RANJIT V. MORE, J.]