1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2007 Ramrao s/o Deorao Sonule .. APPELLANT VERSUS Vijay s/o Ganpat Rathod & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Appellant is raising exception to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 198/2002 by the 3 rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Kinwat on 30-9-2002 in Regular Civil Suit no. 106/1997. 2 Suit was presented by the appellant / original plaintiff claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants. Plaintiff claims to be the tenant in respect of the property and furthermore, he is also claiming the 2 disputed property on the basis of oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into by his predecessor in title. So far as the case put up by plaintiff in respect of oral agreement of sale is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the courts below. However, trial court has held that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit property and as such granted decree of perpetual injunction in his favour. Appellate court while entertaining the appeal by the original defendants reversed the finding recorded by the trial court. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the appellate court. Claim raised by the plaintiff in respect of his tenancy before the tenancy authority has been turned down. So also the appeal presented by him to the Deputy Collector has been dismissed and further appeal presented to the Additional Collector has also been turned down on 30-3-2000. Thus claim of tenancy raised by plaintiff has been turned down by competent tenancy authority. Apart from this, plaintiff has also failed to substantiate his case in respect of oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into by his predecessor in title. Revenue entries recorded in favour of the plaintiff demonstrating his possession have been set aside and the appeal presented in that regard by the plaintiff has also been turned 3 down. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence in respect of possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property. As the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the disputed property, he is not entitled to seek the decree of perpetual injunction. The first appellate court on appreciating the evidence placed on record has given a finding of fact as regards possession of the plaintiff. Finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court need not be interfered while entertaining the instant second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa75.07.odt