1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda } of Coram, appearances, Court's } Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________ }_____________________________ Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 7. ...................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/09/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. Both the Courts below have dismissed the Suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. 2. The present plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and injunction. In spite of availing ample opportunity, the plaintiff did not led any evidence and eventually the Suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. In Appeal, the plaintiff prayed for remand of the matter. The appellate Court has observed that ample opportunity was given to the appellant, but still the appellant did not avail of the same. The 2 appellate Court also held that the present respondent/defendant is in possession of the property admeasuring 5 Acres 20 Gunthas from S.No. 436/2. 3. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact the plaintiff was handed over the possession of the property in the execution proceedings bearing Darkhast No. 19 of 1981 and since then was in possession of the property. According to her, during the pendency of the Suit, the appellant lost the possession and as such has moved amendment application seeking restoration of possession. The said amendment application was rejected. Against the said order, the present appellant preferred Civil Revision Application before this Court. As there was no stay granted by this Court, the Suit was decided and thereafter the Revision came to be disposed of as the Suit was already decided. She pray to allow the amendment application also. Mrs. Kulkarni further submits that in law, the lease could not have been created in favour of the present respondent. The lease was executed in favour of present respondent in the year 1958 and 3 according to her, at that time, Inam was abolished and land stood with the Govt. As such, she prays that by allowing the amendment application, the matter may be remanded back. 4. The case of the present appellant is that the land in question is a service Inam land. If the land in question, according to the appellant, is a service Inam land, then the question of abolition of Inam does not arise. Further, the lease that has been executed in favour of present respondent is by way of registered instrument. The Courts on evaluation of evidence, have come to the conclusion that the present respondent is in possession of the said property. Except the issue of possession, no other issue has been decided by the appellate Court also. 5. In light of above, no substantial question of law was involved. As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 133.2009