*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.642/2008 with SECOND APPEAL NO.665/2008 Dattatraya Ganu Ranjankar. ..Appellant (in both) -versus- Sitaram Shankar Patil and others. (in SA 642/08) Smt.Parvatibai Shankar Patil & others (in SA 665/08) ..Respondents ................. Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr.Prasad Kulkarni i/b Mr.P.S. Dani for the Respondents No.1 to 3. .................. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 09th July, 2010. P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 The original Appellant in Civil Appeals No.60/2001 and 61/2001 has filed these second appeals aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge (I), Raigad-Alibag, dismissing his appeals. 3 It is not disputed that the present Appellant who was the original Defendant in RCS No.125/1994 was also Plaintiff in RCS No. 85/1994. The Appellant instituted RCS No.85/1994 for perpetual injunction against the Respondents who are original Plaintiffs in RCS No. 125/1994. Both the suits were consolidated, common issues were framed, *2* common trial was conducted and resultantly by the common judgment and decree dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibag, he dismissed the present Appellant’s suit bearing RCS No.85/1994 and decreed RCS No.125/1994 filed by the Respondents before me. 4 The only substantial question of law, according to Mr.Patil, is that when the Appellant is armed with the certificate under Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, then, there could not have been decree against him, resultantly the Appellant’s suit for perpetual injunction bearing RCS No.85/1994 deserves to be decreed. 5 This contention of the Appellant, on the basis of the certificate under Section 32-M, has not been accepted by the Courts below. While accepting the claim of the present Respondents (deceased Parvatibai) the Courts below have held that the important issue was as to who is the lawful owner of the suit land Survey No.16 Hissa No.4B. In view of the above, the Trial Court observed that 7/12 extract placed on record shows that the entire land Survey No.16 Hissa No.4 was in the ownership and possession of Shankar Patil from 1941-42 to 1973-74 as protected tenant. Reliance is placed on the application filed in the office of the Mamlatdar, Alibag under Section 88(c) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which indicates that Shankar Patil was the protected tenant of the entire land Survey No.16 Hissa No.4. Thereafter, there was award passed in favour of Shankar Patil and he paid the purchase price and obtained the certificate under Section 32-M as tenant of the entire land. It is undisputed that Mutation Entry No.1039 dated 10.01.1973 reflected the name of Shankar Patil. 6 However, it is urged by Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the Appellant before me, that Parvatibai could not produce that certificate on record and therefore, the certificate in favour of the Appellant clinches the issue. *3* 7 I am unable to accept this contention for more than one reason. Firstly, this contention demands appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, which cannot be done in this limited jurisdiction. Secondly, Mr.Patil’s contention overlooks the fact that the Mutation Entry No.1039 speaks otherwise. This Mutation Entry shows the name of Shankar Patil and the reasoning in paragraphs No.11 and 12 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court would demonstrate that if the case of Appellant is that Survey No.16 Hissa No.4 was divided into two Hissas bearing No.4A and 4B, then, it was for the Appellant to establish as to how Shankar Patil’s name appears in the Mutation Entry in respect of the entire land. Having failed to establish that, the Courts below were in no error in dismissing the Appellant’s suit (RCS No.85/1994) and consequently, dismissing the Appellant’s appeals. Further on the same reasoning the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were in no error in decreeing the suit (RCS No. 125/1994) of Parvatibai for possession on the basis of the title. 8 There is no substantial question of law involved in these second appeals and consequently, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)