1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 848 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 848 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 848 OF 2008 Smt. Godavari Daji Sankhe ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff No.2) Versus Shri Vinayak Harishchandra Save & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Nandkumar Sankhe, Power of Attorney for the plaintiff. Mr. S.G.Karandikar, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 30th July, 2008. DATE: 30th July, 2008. DATE: 30th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Nandkumar Sankhe, power of attorney holder of the appellant, who is original plaintiff No.2 and also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2 2. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff No.1 - Vasudeo Sankhe and plaintiff No.2 - Smt. Godavari Sankhe against the defendant contending that the suit property, being agricultural land Survey No.43 Hissa No.5 admeasuring 57 Ares situated at Village Kurgaon, Taluka Palghar was previously owned by Krushnalal Manohardas and after him, it was owned by his successors Harkisan Krushnalal Shah and others. They sold the land to the defendant and Vasant Karvir and Laxman Save under a registered sale deed dated 20.6.1972. According to the plaintiffs, they and other predecessors were in possession of this land for 50 - 60 years as tenants. After sale of the land they are in possession of the said property as tenants of the purchasers. According to them, because of cordial relations between the plaintiff with the former owner, no receipts were obtained by the plaintiffs nor their names were mutated in the Record of Rights. Taking advantage of this, the defendant applied for mutation of the land. At that time, the plaintiffs raised objection before the T.I.L.R. On 2.4.2000, the defendant tried to encroach upon the land and take forcible possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration that they are in possession of the property and for perpetual injunction 3 restraining the defendant from causing any interference in their possession. 3. The defendant contested the suit and denied that the plaintiffs were in possession as tenants. Several issues were framed. After hearing the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.34 of 2007. That Appeal also came to be dismissed. The Second Appeal is filed only by the plaintiff No.2. The L.rs. of original plaintiff No.1, are respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/5 before this Court. 4. Both the Courts below gave concurrent findings that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are in possession of the property and that they were the tenants of the defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have no documentary evidence to support their claim as tenants. The appellate Court noted that only for the period from 1933-34 there was an entry to show that the predecessor of the plaintiffs cultivating the suit land for 2-3 years, but after that there is no entry anywhere to show that the plaintiffs were in possession or were cultivating the land. The plaintiffs also admit that they do not have documents to support their claim. 4 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants pointed out that the plaintiff No.1 in the present litigation had made a claim before the Tahsildar about the same property with the same contentions. After hearing the parties, the Tahsildar held that the applicant/plaintiff had never cultivated the suit land. Against that finding, they preferred the appeal before the Sub-Divisonal Officer. That appeal also came to be dismissed and then they filed Revision Application No.145/B/2001. That Revision Application has also been dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the Judgment dated 24.6.2008. 6. From the above, it is clear that not only both the Courts below have come to the concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiffs, but they have also lost their claim before the Revenue Authorities. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed summarily. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)