:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.509 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.509 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.509 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1242 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1242 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1242 OF 2008 Antu Sonnappa Hegade and others ...Appellants. v. Manzilkhan Mohmadkhan Hakim & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Vijay Killedar, , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.G.S.Godbole , adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 6th August, 2008. DATE: 6th August, 2008. DATE: 6th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The respondent no.1 before this Court is the original plaintiff and the appellants before this Court are the original defendant nos.1 and 2. The original defendant no.3 is the respondent no.2 before this Court. To state in brief, the plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.235 of 2000 claiming permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of suit land bearing gat no.752 admeasuring 6 H 28 R situated at Village Chipre, Taluka: Shirol, District:Kolhapur. Land originally belonged to one Rehimkhan @ Babalal Hakim and according to the plaintiff since 1966 his brother Daulatkhan was cultivating the suit land as tenant and he is in possession and :2: cultivating the land. The defendants contended that they are in possession of the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff preferred regular civil appeal no.41 of 2003. The appeal was allowed holding that the plaintiff had proved his lawful possession and that the defendants were obstructing the possession. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate court, the original defendant nos.1 and 2 have preferred the second appeal. 3. With the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. It appears that in 1978, the plaintiff had filed regular civil suit no.74 of 1978 against one Haroon Patil and Najirahmed Patil for injunction in respect of suit property. Those persons had filed regular civil suit no.62 of 1978 against the plaintiff. In that suit, the trial Court had granted temporary injunction against the plaintiff but his appeals were allowed and the temporary injunction was granted in his favour. It appears that in regular civil suit no.74 of 1978, the defendant nos.1,2 and 3 of the present litigation had filed affidavits exhibits 77, 78 and 79 supporting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendant no.1 Antu was examined and he was confronted with this fact. According to him, thumb marks of the defendants were taken in the field :3: and they were not knowing the contents. However, the appellate Court noted that each of the three affidavits was found to be verified before the C.O.C. of the Court, which shows that these defendants had appeared before the Court and had verified the correctness of the affidavits. Admissions of the present defendants in those affidavits in favour of the plaintiff is material evidence against themselves. 4. The learned counsel for the defendanats/appellants vehemently contended that the evidence of certain defence witnesses, a commissioner’s report and panchanama drawn by Tehsildar in respect of flood situation has not been considered by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeal. However, Mr.Godbole the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff has demonstrated that the evidence has been considered by the appellate Court. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and infact, affidavits filed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in previous litigation in 1978 is material admission against their own case. 5. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. :4: 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no. 1242 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)