1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.717 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1703 OF 2007 Digambar Laxman Sawant : Appellant. Versus Gopal Sakharam Sawant since deceased through his LRs Yesubai Gopal Sawant & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Milind D Parab for the appellant. CORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 04th February 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the Original Defendant No.4. The Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming that the suit property originally belonged to one Saba. Saba had left behind him two daughters Krishnabai and Bayobai. He executed a will in their favour. Krishnabai died issueless and the property came to Bayobai. It is alleged that Bayobai executed a will in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property which is given to him under a will. 2 3. The suit was resisted by the Defendant No.4 on the ground that the suit property was in fact a joint family property and neither Saba nor Bayobai had right to make a will in respect of the suit property. The learned Judges of the Courts below have found that the Plaintiff has proved his possession of the suit property and therefore passed decree of injunction. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends before me that the suit property is a joint family property and no injunction should have been granted. In this regard. It may be observed that the suit property is, claimed by the Plaintiff, to be in exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. The learned Judges of the Courts below have considered the revenue records which include 7x12 extract which consistently go to show the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the Appellant to the allegations made in Civil Suit No.81 of 1991. If those allegations are seen as were made by Gopal, it would be clear that he claimed that the property was in possession of each of the shareholder independently. This contention in fact supports the contention of the plaintiff and the courts below have not fallen in error in holding that the plaintiff was in possession. There are two 3 concurrent findings of facts. What is urged before me is only the question of facts. No question of law is urged before me. There is therefore no substance in this appeal. The same is dismissed in limini. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application does not survive, the same is disposed of. [C.L.PANGARKAR, J]