1 S.A.No.504/09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.504 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of land Gat No.761 to the extent of northern side 5 hectares 6 ares land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that original S.No.267 is converted into land Gat No.761 and the said land was owned by the father of plaintiff by name 2 S.A.No.504/09 Nivratti. His father had mortgaged the suit land in his life time with one Ramling Sahakari Pat Pedhi. Thereafter, he got it redeemed and got its possession back. Thereafter, in 1964, he sold southern 5 hectares 7 ares land to one Manik Pawar and executed nominal sale deed. As such relying on the old record, Mr.Mahajan, learned counsel contends that the appellant had ownership and possession of the suit property. According to him, both the Courts have perversely appreciated the revenue record. 3. Mr.Shivraj Deshmukh, learned counsel holding for Mr.V.P.Kadam, advocate for the Respondents submits that both the Courts on appreciation of evidence has concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. In the Second Appeal the said appreciation of evidence can not be assailed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments delivered by the Courts below. The Courts have relied on the old revenue record since 1922 and 3 S.A.No.504/09 the sale-deed, so also statement and the certificate issued under the Consolidation Act. The Civil Courts can not go into the legality of the certificate issued by the authorities under the Consolidation Act. The Courts have properly evaluated the import of the said certificate and have arrived at a proper conclusion. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Even the land which was mortgaged by the father of the appellant was only to the extent of 9 acres 30 gunthas. As such the appellant can not claim ownership over the whole Gat number. 5. In light of the above, no substantial question of law arises. As such the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.12.2010. asp/office/sa504.09 4 S.A.No.504/09