1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9131 OF 2007 Babu s/o. Balasaheb Dhage ....Appellant. Versus Bhagwan s/o. Narsu Kale deceased through his L.Rs. & others ....Respondents. Shri. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. P.K. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No. 1A. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATE : 30th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The refusal to grant decree in favour of plaintiff by order dated 13.8.1999 was tested by the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge at Osmanabad in R.C.A.No. 104/1999 and by order dated 21st June 2007, the learned Additional District Judge, Osmanabad set aside the order of dismissal and decreed the suit, directing thereby the possession of plaintiff is protected on land Gat No. 281 till dispossession at the hands of defendant No. 1 by applying due process of law. These 2 observations of the First Appellate Court are questioned by the defendant No. 4 Babu. 2. Mr. Choudhary for the appellant submits, the substantial question of law in the matter could be that the First Appellate Court swayed away contrary to the evidence on record and and reached to an erroneous findings. 3. On analyzing the evidence vis-a-viz, the findings recorded by both the Court, I do not agree to what the learned counsel for the appellant has addressed. 4. It is not in controversy that the land belonged to one Limban Rama, the owner of the property. The plaintiff asserts tenancy rights over the same. The Courts found, he could not establish it, however, there were entries of his possession at least from the year 1971-1979. The defendant No. 4 claims to have purchased the property from Limban in the year 1980 and asserts that he was put in possession by the vendor. Indeed, the submission of defendant No. 4, having been put in possession, is indicative by the revenue entries produced in respect of land Gat No. 281 at the behest of the plaintiff in the form of 7/12 extracts, proved through the power of attorney at Exh. 45. It is not that only the 7/12 extract supports the plaintiff, but the plaintiff sought to challenge the sale in favour of defendant No. 4 by the original owner Limban and 3 plaintiff succeeded at the level of Deputy Collector, Aurangabad in file No. 90-TNCA-32 dated 14.12.1995 (Exh. 46). Thereafter, the matter was taken by the defendant No. 4 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in file No. 6/B/96/0 dated 19.6.1998 (Exh. 65) where also the learned Member decided in favour of plaintiff. These documents in unequivocal terms illustrate that the sale in favour of defendant No. 4 was declared by competent authority to be contrary to the H.T.A.L. Act. The status of the plaintiff may be treated as deemed tenant. However, the fact remains there operated protection in favour of plaintiff based on the persistent entries having evinced the possession and the record. The observations of the learned First Appellate Court, in particular in para 8, also specifies the correct position. 4. In the result, second appeal sans merit, dismissed. It is clarified, the remedies of the appellant/defendant No. 4 having been protected by the First Appellate Court, referred hereinabove are not disturbed. Civil Application disposed of. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL J.] ssc/sa622.07