pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.111 OF 2009 Tarubai Nana Chavan & Others ..Appellants versus Lalsaheb Anna Bhopate ..Respondent Mr.G.A.Karmalkar i/b. M/s. G.S. Hegde & Associates for the appellants None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009. P.C: 1. The respondent herein had instituted a suit in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad, District Satara being Regular Civil Suit No.288/1986 for Order of injunction restraining the appellants from causing obstruction in the peaceful occupation and enjoyment by the respondent. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondent by judgment and decree dated 9.3.2007. Appeal came to be filed against the said judgment and decree by the present respondents in the Court of District Judge-I, Karad being Civil Appeal No.32 of 2007. The said appeal came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 8.10.2008. Hence this Second Appeal. 2. I have heard learned Advocate for the appellants. A perusal of the record goes to show that all along, the name of the respondent is shown in the Revenue Record as Kabjedar and that the learned Judge has accepted this fact for the purpose of recording the finding that the respondent was in possession and as such injunction came to be issued against the appellants. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants contended that by Sale Deed of 1961 the suit property was sought to be purchased and an attempt was made to have the name of the purchasers recorded as per the sale deed in the Revenue Record. However, because the re-grant amount was not deposited, the said request for mutation entry in the Revenue Record was declined and further when the sum of Rs.1000/- was deposited that amount also was not given proper credit and the Sale Deed of 1961 was not recognized by the Revenue Authorities and as such the name of the appellants remained to be incorporated in the Revenue Record. Learned Advocate Mr. Karmalkar submitted that both the courts did not give proper weightage to the Sale Deed and wrongly accepted the claim of the respondent. He submitted that the impugned judgments are contrary to the well established principal namely Sale Deed will over ride the mere entries in the Revenue Record showing a particular person as Kabjedar and in his submission that constitutes a question of law. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Karmalkar. The very fact that the Revenue Department did not recognize the sale deed clearly indicates that though the parties have scribed the sale deed, it was not a valid sale deed particularly when the land in question was Deshpande Watan Inam. If this be so there was no error in not relying upon the entires in the Revenue Record showing the name of respondent as Kabjedar. If consistent entries are shown in favour of the respondent as Kabjedar both the Courts were correct to hold that the respondent was in possession and that the possession of the respondent is required to be protected. 4. In my view, the impugned judgments were rightly arrived at on the basis of the relevant record. No substantial question of law is involved and as such there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgments. Hence the Order. ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed with no Order as to costs. ii. After the aforesaid Order is passed learned Advocate for the appellants sought liberty to seek declaration that the said Sale Deed of 1961 is a valid document. In my view, no such specific liberty need be granted by this Court. It will be open for the appellants to take steps to protect their interest. If the same is filed, it will be attended to by the Court in which the same is filed on the basis of merits of the matter. Iii. In view of the aforesaid Order, Civil Application No.510 of 1990 is dismissed with no Order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)