* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2006 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2006 Shri. Prema Valju Vekhande ............Appellant/Orig.Defd V/S. Shri.Namdeo Govind Vekhande thru.his constituted attorney Shri. Eknath Namdeo Vekhande ...........Respondent/Orig.Plff ----------- Mr. A.R. Pitale, adv.for the appellant. Mr. B.M. Vekhande, adv.for respondents no.1B to 1I. CORAM:- SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED:- 2nd DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. This Appeal is preferred against concurrent finding of facts by the courts below as regards title and possession of the suit property of the respondent and the attempt on the part of the appellant to obstruct that possession. * 2 * 3. Mr.Pitale, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties before the court. He also submits that the court ought not to have framed any issue as regards title to the suit property since the suit was simplicitor for injunction and not a substantive suit for declaration of rights of the parties. 4. The respondent-plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession of the suit property i.e. Gat No.57-A. The appellant, who is the original defendant denied the claim and contended that he is in possession of the portion admeasuring 97 R of Gat No.57-A which is now numbered as Survey No.82/8. It is admitted position that Gat No.57-A forms part of Survey No.82/8, 82/9A, 80/1/B, 81/1/A and 83. This fact is also clear from the Certificate issued by the Talati and the certified copy of the statement issued by the Consolidation Officer as per Rule 9 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In order to prove his title to the suit property the respondent-plaintiff examined his son Namdeo. He also produced the 7/12 extracts in respect of the Gat No.57-A for the year 1988-89. The certified copy of the mutation entry no.254 (Exhibit-43), certified copy of the decision given by the Tahsildar in * 3 * Case No.21 being proceedings under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. By the order passed in the said proceedings, the suit lands were allotted to the predecessors of the plaintiff on paying of fixed price of Rs.635/-. On the basis of the order, mutation entry no. 311 was sanctioned (Exhibit-45). On the basis of the decision and mutation entry, name of Laxman Namdeo Vekhande was continued in the suit land and thereafter in the name of Namde Govind Vekhande. These documents brought on record by the respondent as observed by the courts below go to show that since the year 1958, the respondent and his ancestors are in possession of the suit land. As against this, the appellant has not produced any documents whatsoever to show that his ancestors were in possession of the land at Survey No.82/8. Admittedly after the decision in Case No.21, the appellant did not challenge the same. He also did not challenge the subsequent mutation entry No.311. The courts below on the basis of the evidence produced by the respondent and the admission on behalf of the appellant found that the respondent had established his possession in respect of the suit property as the owner and restrained the appellant from obstructing his possession. Considering the facts and circumstances * 4 * of the case, the evidence led before the court, as also the concurrent findings given by the courts below which are supported by the material brought on record, the same cannot be interfered with. There is also no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 5. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 596 of 2006 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]