(1) SA. 207.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2009 Mohd. Gous S/o Mohd. Abdul Kadir, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Agricultural, R/o Sali Galli, Old Jalna, Dist. Jalna .. Appellant (Ori. Plaintiff) VERSUS The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna, Dist. Jalna .. Respondent (Ori. Defendant) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 855O OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2009 Mohd. Gous S/o Mohd. Abdul Kadir .. Applicant VERSUS The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna .. Respondent Mr. Y.M. Khan, Advocate for the appellant-applicant Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The subject matter of this second appeal is a plot of land admeasuring 50 ft. X 50 ft. situated (2) SA. 207.2009 within the municipal limits of Jalna town. The appellant-plaintiff came with a case that he is in possession of this plot because his predecessor was in possession of the same. He admitted that this plot of land was not part of land CTS. no. 11227, which the appellant purchased about 25 years back. In short, the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that when he purchased land CTS no. 11227, the suit plot also came in his possession. He asserted that since he is in possession, the respondent Municipal Corporation should be prevented from interfering in his possession. 2] Both the Courts below held that since the appellant-plaintiff could not prove his title, there was no possibility of order of perpetual injunction in his favour. 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to highlight the respondent's failure to prove their title to the suit land. He asserted that if the respondent failed to prove their title, the appellant should have been granted injunction. I am afraid this argument has no basis. If the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove his title, there is no possibility of his getting the desired order in his favour. The Courts below have not committed any error. (3) SA. 207.2009 4] The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Appeal should therefore fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. 5] In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application no. 8550 of 2009 seeking stay and injunction, does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp