1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 323 of 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 323 of 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 323 of 2008 Shri Bhimrao Babaso Sonule & Ors. ..Appellants (Org. Defendants) Versus Shri Ramjan Rahiman Mulani & Anr. ..Respondents (Org. Plaintiffs) Mr.Amit B.Borkar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that land City Survey No.951 admeasuring 214.6 sq. mtrs. situated at Village Vadange, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur was 2 given to their father by the Government under a Grant. Their father died in 1972 and after that the names of the plaintiffs, being legal heirs, were recorded as owners of the property. The plaintiffs made construction of a house on the said land. To the southern side of the plot by the side of the road, the defendants were running a Pan stall. However, few months before filing the suit, the defendants had shifted the Pan stall to the boundary of the land of the plaintiffs and also collected some building material on the suit land for constructing a permanent structure. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.1043 of 1996 for perpetual injunction. Later on, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants had taken forcible possession of the piece of that land and therefore, they made amendment in the plaint and sought decree of possession. 3. The defendants contested the suit and contended that they were carrying on the Pan shop for about 15-20 years on the piece of land admeasuring 10’ x 10’ in the southern portion of the said land. According to them, the land belongs to Government and the plaintiffs had no right over the same. Issues were framed. The trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the land was given on Grant by the 3 Government to the plaintiffs’ father and the plaintiffs are in possession as owners. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.284 of 2006. That appeal also came to be dismissed by the District Court. Therefore, they have filed the Second Appeal. 4. Admittedly, the Collector had issued a Sanad under Section 133 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in favour of Rahiman Hasan Mulali, who was the father of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land bearing Survey No.951 admeasuring 214.6 sq. mtrs. 5. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants vehemently contended that the plaintiffs cannot claim title over the property on the basis of the Sanad under Section 133. I find no substance in the contention. The Sanad clearly declares that the land City Survey No.951 was given to Rahiman Hasan Mulali, the father of the plaintiffs as a Grant and the Sanad further certifies that the said land was not assessed to any land revenue till then, but it could be assessment to revenue in that case the grantee would be liable to pay land revenue from time to time. With that condition, the land was granted to the plaintiffs’ father. After the death of the plaintiffs’ father, names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the Assessment Register. 4 The plaintiffs can claim title over the land on the basis of the Grant subject to only condition of payment of land revenue which may be assessed in future. There is no dispute that the encroachment made by the defendants is on the land City Survey No.951. Taking into consideration the concurrent findings and the above referred facts, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the matter. 6. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application No.362 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)