( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2009 Dhondiram s/o Ganpati Kardule APPELLANT VERSUS Gaindeo s/o Karbhari Kardule and another. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Original plaintiff – Dhondiram has preferred this second appeal against concurrent judgements of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. 3. Case of plaintiff – Dhondiram before the trial Court was that he is cousin of defendant No. 1 and they are owners of original survey No. 34E and 34EE, ( 2 ) respectively, which have been converted into block Nos. 181 and 180, respectively. He is owner of block No. 181 admeasuring 3 acres 39 gunthas, but area thereof was shown less by 22 gunthas during consolidation scheme whereas that of block No. 180 of the defendants was shown as 4 acres 13 gunthas instead of 3 acres 39 gunthas and was increased by 15 gunthas more during implementation of the Scheme. Therefore, the appellant (plaintiff) sought declaration regarding his ownership of block No. 181 to the extent of 3 acres 39 gunthas and also for perpetual injunction. The suit was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the entries in the consolidation record had become final. The civil Court also held that it had no jurisdiction under section 36 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The first Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. 4. It appears that the defendant No. 1 had filed a suit for injunction restraining the plaintiff (appellant) from causing any interference in his possession in respect of land bearing block No. 180, ( 3 ) admeasuring 4 acres 13 gunthas, and that suit was decreed. The appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed. The second appeal was also not entertained by this Court. 5. What transpires from the observations of the first Appellate Court is that the consolidation record (Exh-82 and Exh-83) revealed that the consolidation scheme was implemented in presence of the concerned parties i.e. deceased Ganpati and deceased Karbhari through whom the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are claiming their rights in respect of their lands. The entries in the consolidation record indicated that the possession was handed over to the respective parties at the relevant time. Mr. Deshpande submits that such observations of the first Appellate Court are contrary to the observation of the trial Court. Be that may as it is, it is explicit that the consolidation scheme was implemented during life time of deceased Ganpati and deceased Karbhari. Neither of them had challenged the consolidation entries during their lifetime. The challenge to the consolidation record was subsequently ( 4 ) made by the appellant but the competent consolidation authority dislodged his objection. Under the circumstances, the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court and particularly in view of earlier litigation in suit filed by the defendant No.1, I am of the opinion that this second appeal is unsustainable in view of “Gurdev Kaur and others v. Kaki and others” (AIR 2006 S.C. 1975). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa379-09