1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2009 Raosaheb s/o Ambadas Jarhad & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Dagdu s/o Yeshwanta Jarhad .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.G. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Distirict Judge -2, Jalna on 22-6-2009 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 2/2008 whereby the first appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has directed dismissal of the suit presented by the plaintiffs. 2 Plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 114/2006 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant thereby seeking restrain order 2 against him. According to the plaintiff, the suit plots were allotted in favour of their father during his life time by the State Government and as such, their father was put in possession of the plots and after his demise, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. Defendant has controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. Trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties has granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs clamping order of injunction against the defendant. In an appeal presented by the defendant, judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been reversed by the first appellate court. 3 I have perused the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. On perusal of record it transpires that PW 1 Shrimant in his cross examination has categorically admitted that the defendant has dug pits on plot nos. 1 and 4 and has also enforced possession. It is also categorical admission on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession over the disputed property since last 4 years. Another witness for plaintiff, Raosaheb, has also admitted in respect of possession of the defendant over the suit property. PW 3 Sanjay has also admitted that the defendants have dug pits over the plot belonging to the plaintiff and has enforced his possession. On the face of the oral evidence and more specifically, 3 admissions given by the plaintiff and his witnesses in respect of possession of the defendant over the disputed property, I do not find that the first appellate court h as committed any error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Plaintiffs have not established their possession over the disputed property and a such the first appellate court was justified in refusing to confirm the decree in respect of grant of perpetual injunction passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. There is no substance in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa805.09.odt