1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.691 OF 2004 Navnath S/o Baburao Shinde ... Appellant. Versus Bhagwat S/o Namdeorao Shinde and another ... Respondent. ... Mr.T.G.Gaikwad, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.T.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit simpliciter for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession in respect of the 2 suit property admeasuring 5 hectares 82 ares. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of Hissa Nos.2 and 4 of field Gat No.14. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendants have admitted that plaintiff is in possession of Hissa Nos.2 and 4. As such as per U/o 8 Rule 5 of the C.P.C., the decree can be passed on the basis of said admission. He has further submitted that the defendant admits that the suit property is an ancestral property and the plaintiff has half share. In such circumstances, the Court should have decreed the suit. When it is admitted that Hissa Nos.2 and 4 belongs to plaintiff and is proved by evidence in the form of Exh.46 then he is entitled to protect his possession. 3. With the assistance of the learned 3 counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the judgment delivered by both the Courts. The fact that the plaintiff has share in the property is not disputed fact. The only dispute revolves around an area in occupation of plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession of 5 hectares 82 ares. The Courts have gone through the various maps placed on record and so also the hissa numbers. In Exh.46 hissa No.2 is shown as 2 hectares 90 ares and pot-hissa No.4 is shown as 2 hectares 12 ares. The total area comes to 5 hectares 2 ares. So if the case of plaintiff is accepted that he is in possession of Pot-hissa Nos.2 and 4 then he would be in possession of 5 hectares 2 ares, whereas there are other maps produced on record at Exh.77 and Exh.80. As per the same there are six hissas and the plaintiff is shown to be in occupation of Pot-hissa 2, 4 and 6. If the total of the said area is concerned then it would be 5 hectares 36 ares. By no stretch he would be in possession of 5 hectares 82 ares. 4. In light of the above, the plaintiff 4 would not get an injunction for an area of 5 hectares 82 ares. No error in the judgments of the Courts below. As such the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa69104