1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1597 OF 2005 Namdeo Govind Shingare ........Appellant versus Bandu Ganpat Kadu ........ Respondent. Mr. Pratap Patil adv. for the Appellant Mr. P.S. Dani adv. for the respondent CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present respondent is original plaintiff who instituted a suit for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the present appellant/defendant from interfering with the suit field. The trial court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff primarily on the ground and being of the view that the revenue entries post consolidation are fradulently made and are erroneous. Aggreived by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, first appeal was carried to the District Judge by the present respondent/plaintiff and he having succeeded in the first appeal the defendant/appellant has questioned the correctness thereof by filing the present second appeal. 2. Perused the judgments and orders of both the courts below. With a view to substantiate the possession the plaintiff in 2 addition to the oral evidence led, also placed on record 7/12 extract covering the crop statement from the year 1964 to 1984 which stood in the name of Ganpat, father of the plaintiff. The revenue record shows that the land was in his personal cultivation and he had possession over the suit filed. The mutation entries are also taken and the relevant one is bearing no.471. Even according to the defendant/appellant the record of right entries in respect of the suit field stands in favour of the plaintiff but pleaded that those are incorrect and false entries. There is absolutely no evidence led much less reliable to brush aside the revenue entries which are standing for a long period of time. The learned counsel for the appellant has tired to contend that the defendant was in possession of the suit field on the date of filing of the suit. However, taking advantage of an order, of temporary injunction, the defendant was dispossessed. In regard to this dispossession there are absolutely no pleadings whatsoever conceeds the learned counsel for the appellant. If this be so, then no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the first appellate court about the plaintiff being in possession of the suit field after the death of his father Ganpat. Post consolidation entries are also in favour of the plainiff. 3. Perused the impugned judgment. The same does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration. Hence second appeal cannot be enertained 3 and the same is summarily dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)