1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 407/2010 (Smt. Shantabai wd/o Prabhudayal Singh Thakur & another VERSUS Bhagwan Bala Walke & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mustafa S. Abbasi, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 . Heard. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were the owners of the suit property. The plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit field was allotted to the defendants in the year 1971 and thereafter the said allotment was cancelled and the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs in the year 1977. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property without any just cause. 2 The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs and also denied that the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property. It was the case of the defendants that the defendants were the owner of the suit property as the same was allotted to them by the Government. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs took forcible possession from the defendants in July-1999 and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to possession of the suit property. The defendants filed a counter claim for possession. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving their rightful possession over the suit property. The trial Court held that the defendants had succeeded in proving that the suit property was allotted to them by the Government in the year 1972. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and perpetual injunction and decreed the counter claim of the defendants. The first appellate Court, on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had proved their peaceful and legal possession over the suit property. According to the first appellate Court, the defendants were creating the obstruction in the peaceful possession of the 3 plaintiffs. The first appellate Court held that the defendants had also not proved their ownership over the suit property as the 7/12 extracts produced by the defendants on record were not the documents of title and did not prove the ownership of the defendants over the suit property. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court was set aside. Since the plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit property, the first appellate Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The first appellate Court rightly held that the 7/12 extracts produced by the appellants-defendants on record did not prove their title or ownership over the suit property. Moreover, according to the first appellate Court, the entries in the 7/12 extracts were subjected to challenge before the Revenue Authorities and in such circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in holding that the defendants were the owners of the suit property, specially when they had failed to prove their ownership by producing the document of title on record. The first appellate Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and dismissed the counter claim of 4 the defendants as the defendants had not proved their ownership over the suit property and the mutation entries were subjected to challenge before the Revenue Authorities. Since the findings of the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts and since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE