1 S.A. 13 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2011 Narhari S/o Baburao Gade died through L.Rs. Appellant V E R S U S Devrao S/o Baburao Gade died through L.Rs. & another Respondents Mr. S.V. Jadhav Patil, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri S.V. Jadhav Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the year 1968, the plaintiff Narhari purchased the suit property from one Sudam in the name of Devrao, as Devrao was his 2 S.A. 13 of 2011 real brother. In the year 1976, a suit was instituted but this property remained to be included in the said suit. The learned counsel further contended that in the year 1976, there was an oral partition, and this property was allotted to the plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit property. According to the learned counsel the Courts below have passed erroneous Judgment. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence oral as well as documentary, came to a concurrent conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit property. It has been observed by the Courts that there is conflicting case of the appellant’s, at one place the appellant says that as the property was not mentioned in the plaint it was not included in the compromise terms, and at another place they say that the same was earlier given in the share of Narhari. The title document is in the name of Devrao. Devrao has filed written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff. There is no title document in favour of the plaintiff and there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence. The Courts below have arrived at plausible and possible conclusion. The Second Appeal cannot be entertained only on the ground that some other view may be possible. 4. In the light of the same, Second Appeal being sans substantial 3 S.A. 13 of 2011 question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the dismissall of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 112 of 2011 does not survive, and the same is disposed of accordingly. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*13.11SA/090311