3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 733 OF 2010 Lukman Khan S/o Bismilla Khan .... APPELLANT V E R S U S Hariharrao S/o Vithoba Mirkar (Deceased ) through L.Rs. & Oths. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr.Milind M. Patil,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.T.G.Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Resp.no. 1 & 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10/03/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective counsel.. 2. This is Appeal by original defendant no. 3. The present respondent had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction in respect of property bearing G.No. 89 admeasuring 4 H. 36 R.. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendant no. 3 preferred Appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant no. 3 has filed present Second Appeal. 3 3. Mr. Milind M. Patil ( Beedkar), the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts have given perverse reasonings as far as the subsequent Suit filed by the present Appellant is concerned. The said Suit is not for recovery of possession but is for the relief of declaration and injunction. The appellant has no where admitted the possession of the plaintiff in as much as the Written Statement, where such admission is made, had been amended as such the said averment could not have been relied. According to the learned counsel, the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence and there is perverse appreciation of evidence. 4. Per contra, Mr. T.G.Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, the learned counsel for the original plaintiff submits that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have arrived at correct conclusion. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. Even according to the case of the present appellant, the appellant has an interest in G.No. 95. As far as G.No. 89 is concerned, the present appellant can not claim any right. The right of the present 3 appellant flows from S.No. 28 which is converted in G.No. 95. Both the Courts have appreciated the evidence on record. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view is also possible. 7. The apprehension of the appellants’ counsel that the Suit filed by the present appellant shall have to be decided on its own merit, need not to be dilated in as much as if there is a dispute regarding the boundaries, the parties can get it fixed. 8. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 733.2010