1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.299 OF 1988 1 Kushaba Mahadu Udate, since deceased, through L.Rs. 1-A Shantabai Kushaba Udate, age: 69 years, Occ: Nil; 1-B Vilas Kushaba Udate, age: 48 years, Occ: Service; 1-C Prakash Kushaba Udate, age: 46 years, Occ: Service; 1-D Sanjay Kushaba Udate, age: 42 years, Occ: Service; 1-E Rajendra Kushaba Udate, age: 42 years, Occ: education. 1-F Damodhar Mahadu Udate, age: 74 years, Occ: Nil; 1-G Ramkrishna Mahadu Udate, age: 71 years, Occ: Hotel; All R/o J.J.Galli, Ahmednagar. Appellants Versus Shridhar Namdeo Selke, age: 69 years, Occ: Service, R/o J.J.Galli, Ahmednagar. Respondents 2 Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for appellants. None For Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 17th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Appellant – original plaintiff has approached this Court raising challenge to the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below. 2 Original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.149/1976 against the defendant – Respondent herein claiming decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing plaintiff’s possession in respect of residential premises. According to the plaintiff, he in possession of residential premises consisting of 14 khans constructed portion as a tenant since many years. The predecessor-in-title of the defendant was one Chhaganbai, who had inducted the plaintiff as tenant. The property has been subsequently alienated by the original owner Chhaganbai in favour of defendant. After purchase of the property, defendant has tried to dispossess the plaintiff by adopting extra judicial means. Plaintiff, as such, approached the Court claiming decree of perpetual injunction so as to protect his occupation of suit premises. 3 Defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendant, two rooms situate at South-West corner of the suit house, described in para 1 of the plaint, are only in possession of the plaintiff and his contention that he is in possession of 14 khans area is 3 erroneous. Defendant has denied the allegation in respect of obstruction of plaintiffs’ possession over the suit premises, as alleged by plaintiffs. 4 The trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his case in respect of his possession over six khans area and as such, awarded decree restricting the restraint order in respect of an area possessed by the plaintiff. Claim of the plaintiff in respect of his possession over 8 khans constructed premises has been turned down by the trial Court. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, approached the first appellate Court by presenting Regular Civil Appeal No.267 of 1985, which came to be heard and disposed of by III Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and order dated 17 th October, 1988. 5 While admitting the Second Appeal, no substantial question of law has been formulated. I have perused the judgments recorded by both the Courts below and on careful scrutiny of the orders passed by both the Courts below, I do not find that the appeal involves any substantial question of law. On appreciation of evidence placed on record, Courts below have drawn a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his claim in respect of his possession over 6 khans constructed portion out of the suit house. The case put up by the plaintiff in respect of his possession over 8 khans constructed area has not been substantiated by leading cogent evidence. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence placed on record and have drawn the 4 conclusion, which cannot be faulted on any count. There is no error committed by the Courts below in drawing the conclusions, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The Second Appeal is, thus, devoid of any merit and as such, same deserves to be dismissed. 6 Second Appeal is, thus, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa29988