sa632.10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ SECOND APPEAL NO.632 OF 2010 UTTAM DIGAMBER BHALERAO @ KULKARNI VERSUS VAIJNATH BHANUDAS TAHKAR AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Gaware Niteen V. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that both the courts below have not appreciated that the respondents filed RCS No.53/1981 and subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn. In the plaint, there were pleadings in respect of their claim for ownership in respect of Survey No.137/A. Since the said suit was withdrawn and the respondents have purchased the land from Survey No.138/A, they have no concern with the land in Survey No.137/A. The respondents are illegally trying to disturb the possession of the appellant, who is original plaintiff. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant before the lower appellate Court. The sum and substance of the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondents - original defendants are in no way connected or related to the land Survey No.137/A and the land from Survey No.138/A has been sold to them. Therefore, relying upon the grounds / questions of law, the Counsel for sa632.10 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ appellant would submit that this second appeal deserves consideration. 2 I have carefully perused the grounds / questions of law in the appeal. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the appellant, who is original plaintiff, failed to prove ownership and possession in respect of the suit property. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the earlier suit which was filed by the respondents herein came to be withdrawn and, therefore, their claim in the suit or averments in the suit that they are owner of survey no. 137/A stands rejected, has been thoroughly considered by both the Courts below. The suit filed by the respondents was for only temporary injunction and both the Courts have concurrently held that in the said suit, no any other contention has been gone into and the suit was withdrawn simplicitor. 3 Apart from what is observed herein above, in para 9 of the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has mentioned the Sale Deed Numbers as 1989/68. On perusal of the same it discloses that it is in respect of 5 acre area out of the land Survey No. 137/A having total area 17 acres 33 Guntha. The boundaries of the same are same as described in para 1 of the plaint and this falsifies the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was not in respect of the land in Survey No.137/A sa632.10 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ and it was in respect of the land in Survey No.138/A. There is no any other evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence on record about the ownership and possession of the appellant in the suit land, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the appellant failed to prove ownership and possession of the suit land cannot be said to be perverse. Rather, those are in consonance with the copy of the sale deed which was placed on record. 4 No case is made out. No substantial question of law falls for consideration. Hence, second appeal stands dismissed summarily. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*