1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.755 OF 2002 Dnyanu Mahipati Patil and ors. : Appellants. Versus Rangrao Ishwara Patil : Respondent. Shri S. M. Railkar for the Appellants. Shri S. S. Patwardhan for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : September 09, 2008 P.C. 1. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 13/9/2000 passed by the learned Additional district Judge, Kolhapur by which the Judgment and Decree dated 31/1/1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Malkapur came to be set aside and the suit filed by the Respondent came to be decided. 2 2. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.74 of 1986 filed by the Respondent herein, who is the original Plaintiff, initially for perpetual injunction in respect of the open plot of land admeasuring 15 ft east-west and 26 ft south-north in Grampanchayat Milkat No.341 at village Shimpe. The location and description of the suit property has been mentioned in the plaint. On account of construction of a house in the suit property during pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff amended the said suit thereby introducing a prayer for mandatory injunction seeking directions against the Defendants for removal of the house constructed thereon. The Plaintiff raised claim to the said house property on the basis of inheritance as he is a close relative of Dhondiram Tukaram Patil. 3. The Defendants appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement. The Defendants contended in the said written statement that the suit property was owned by one Dhondiram Tukaram Patil and even the Plaintiff's house is standing on the property owned by the said Dhondiram Patil. It was the case of the Defendants that the said Dhondiram by issuing a consent letter had 3 permitted the Defendants to build a house on the said suit property. 4. The parties went to trial. The trial Court, on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence and especially the assessment extract of the Gram Panchayat of the said property, came to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs did not have any right in respect of the said property and dismissed the said suit by its Judgment and Order dated 31/1/1995. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order dated 31/1/1995, the Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.149 of 1995. The Lower Appellate Court by its Judgment and Order dated 13/9/2000 decreed the said suit and granted injunction as well as passed mandatory orders for removal of the Defendants' house from the suit property. The Lower Appellate Court was of the view that in the context of the political alliance of the respective parties, the material, which was on record of the Grampanchayat, could not be relied upon. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, on the basis of the other material, which was on 4 record and especially the admission of the Defendant, recorded a finding that the case of the Plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property was more plausible than the case of the Defendants. The Lower Appellate Court observed that in view of the fact that the Defendant was claiming a right on the basis of the said consent letter allegedly issued by the said Dhondiram Tukaram Patil and in view of the fact that the said Dhondiram, who was alive, was not examined by the Defendant, the case of the Defendant could not be accepted. 6. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Appellants that the Lower Appellate Court had totally mis-directed itself in not considering the record of the Grampanchayat which was produced in the said suit. It was further contended that the Plaintiff had no documentary evidence to show that he had become the owner of the property in question. It was further contended that there is no dispute as regards the house of the Plaintiff but the dispute is as regards the open court yard. An adjudication of the aforesaid issue which has already been concluded by the Lower Appellate Court would entail the adjudication on facts which is impermissible in the jurisdiction under 5 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lower Appellate Court, has recorded a finding of fact on the basis that the case of the Plaintiff was more plausible than the case of the Defendants. 7. In my view, the Second Appeal raises no substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]