1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2005 Bhau Parvati Gawali Appellant Versus Sabaji Maruti Gawali & others Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2005 Bhau Parvati Gawali Appellant Versus Sabaji Maruti Gawali & others Respondents Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the appellants.. Shri R.S. Pawar, Advoate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Appellants are raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 2 Maruti Rama Gawali, respondent in both the appeals has presented Regular Civil Suit no.133/1979 claiming a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant / appellant herein whereas appellant herein has presented Regular Civil Suit no. 168/1984 claiming a decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondent. Both the parties claim their possession over the disputed agricultural property. 3 Trial court on appreciation of evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the respondents have established their case and decreed the suit presented by respondents whereas the suit presented by the appellant came to be dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been confirmed by the first appellate court in the appeal presented by appellant herein. 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. The courts below have recorded specific finding that the forefathers of the respondents were in possession over the disputed property on the basis of sale effected in the year 1932. There are entries in the revenue record in the name of forefathers of the respondents. After partition 3 effected between the members of the family, names of the respondents appeared in the revenue record. Consistent entries appearing in the revenue record since the year 1932 onwards are rightly relied upon by both the courts below to hold in favour of the respondents. I do not find any error committed by the courts below in reaching the conclusion. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa873.05.odt