HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.101/2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.278/2007 Smt.Parvatibai Sahadeo Chavan and others. ..Appellants -VERSUS- Shri Narayan Damodar Chavan and another. ..Respondents ......... Ms.Deepa Matavankar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.S.Kadu, Advocate for the respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellants herein are the original defendants against whom the decree for perpetual injunction has been passed restraining them from interfering with the possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff over 19.5 R land which forms the subject matter of the suit. 2. The common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants was one Khandu. The plaintiff is uncle whereas the defendant is nephew. It is not disputed that Khandu expired in the year 1970 and thereafter, in the year 1971, partition of the properties left behind was effected. The partition was oral. After the properties were partitioned, the names of the respective sharers were entered in the revenue record by taking mutation entries. The suit property comprising Survey No.163/1 had fallen to the share of the plaintiff, hence, mutation entry to that effect was taken, which makes clear the fact that the said entry was effected consequent upon the partition between the parties carried out on 21st April, 1971. The plaintiff placed on record, besides the mutation entry taken in the year 1971, 7/12 extract to indicate his continuous possession over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, his possession is established from the revenue record placed by him before the Court. The plaintiff also stepped into the witness box and deposed in support of his case whereas the defendants though led the oral evidence have not filed any document substantiating the fact of their ownership and possession over the suit property. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, both the Courts have found that the respondent/plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property since the year 1971 and the same has been so recorded in his name. The continuous possession of the plaintiff has been found referable to the valid title and thus, injunction prayed for came to be granted. The first Appellate Court has observed in paragraph No.17 that the defendant in his cross- examination admitted that on 13.03.1993 he has obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating for the first time by issuing notice. If this is the position, it is obvious that since the partition, the plaintiff was in possession of the property, whose possession for the first time was obstructed in the year 1993 by the defendant by issuing notice. 3. Perused the impugned judgment, the same does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is summarily dismissed. Civil Application also does not survive, hence, the same is also dismissed. JUDGE