( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 49 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5447 OF 2009 Darbarsingh s/o. Premsingh Langri .. Appellant Versus Smt. Kusumtai w/o. Nivratti Kagne .. Respondent Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. With consent of the parties this Appeal From Order is heard finally at the stage of admission. Heard Shri M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the sole respondent. ( 2 ) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated as below :- . One Mahadu was owner of Survey No.34 situated at village Koutha, Tal.& Dist. Nanded. It was in all 90 R land. Admittedly 70 R land was acquired for Nanded-Latur road and 20 R land remained with Mahadu Maneji. He sold the 20 R land to Mayadevi by registered sale-deed in the year 1981. It is further say of the plaintiff/appellant that Mahadu got the land measured and found that even after acquisition and sale to Mayadevi, he was in possession of 10 R land. Thereafter, Mahadu sold 2 R land to Narsing before 1990. He sold 10 R land to defendant Kusumtai and after sale transaction to Kusumtai, he sold 3 R land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of 3 R land. He also stated that he got N.A. permission for the same and he constructed Tin shed. Since the defendant was obstructing his possession, he filed Regular Civil suit No.449 of 2001 for injunction. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff/appellant and thereafter he filed application Exh.7 for temporary injunction. The same came to be rejected by the learned ( 3 ) Additional District Judge, Nanded on 25.03.1999. Being aggrieved by the order, this Appeal From Order is filed. 3. Both advocates for the appellant and the respondent have taken me through the judgment as well as the order of the Courts. The learned advocate for the respondent drew my attention to para 9 of the Trial Court judgment, in which the Trial Court discussed the evidence of Darbarsing at Exh.44. It is pointed out that no layout plan was produced on record. The appellant was not able to tell the plot number. He also stated that from 08.02.1991 till filing of the suit he had not measured the suit property. He also admitted that he had not given 7/12 extracts to the office of the Collector, Nanded, before passing the order of N.A. Permission. 4. The Trial Court so also he Appellate Court considered that after acquisition and after sale-deed, 20 R land to Mayadevi, nothing remained with Mahadu to sell and inspite of that the parties have come to the Court that Mahadu got the land measured and he was found to be in possession of 10 R land. Admittedly, Mahadu sold 2 R land to Narsing before 1990 and sold 10 R land to Kusumatai on ( 4 ) 11.06.1990 and thereafter the registered sale-deed in respect of 3 R land came to be executed on 08.02.1991. It is also argued by the appellant that in 3 R land, the plaintiff has constructed tin shed and is in possession of the same, whereas the defendant has come with a case that overnight plaintiff constructed the tin shed, but, that alone would not dispossess her from plot purchased by her. It is also brought to my notice that no injunction was granted in the pending suit, though the matter was taken up to High Court by way of writ petition against refusal to grant temporary injunction. It is also clear from the record that the suit itself was dismissed and the Trial Court after full trial has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not owner and possessor of the suit property. That is the finding on issue No.1. The First Appellate Court also did not find any material sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the property. In view of this, in my opinion, this is not the case where discretion used by the District Judge in refusing to grant injunction should be interfered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal from order is dismissed. ( 5 ) 5. In view of disposal of the Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 5447 of 2009 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/ao49.09