1 sa323.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 323 OF 2010 Maruti S/o Saluba Kakde and another .. APPELLANTS -VERSUS- Prayagbai W/o Thakuba Kakde and another ...RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL No. 329 OF 2010 Kamalbai W/o Maruti Kakde .. APPELLANT -VERSUS- Prayagbai W/o Thakuba Kakde and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2010. PER COURT : The present appellants had instituted the suit for declaration regarding the sale deed and injunction. The present respondent had also instituted the suit for injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the present respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the 2 sa323.10 appellants. The appellants preferred two appeals. The District Court dismissed both appeals filed by the present appellants. The said judgments are assailed by the appellants in the present two Second Appeals. 2. Shri. Palodkar, the learned counsel for appellants submits that sale of two Guntha land by Saluba in favour of the respondent in the year 1996 was barred in view of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of the Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. In the light of this, the sale deed itself is null and void and the respondent can not claim any advantage on the basis of the said sale deed. The learned Counsel further contended that Saluba was not the absolute owner but even the appellant was co- owner and Saluba had no absolute right to sale the property. 3. The fact that Saluba executed the registered instrument of sale in favour of the respondent on 19th January, 1996 is not disputed. In both the Courts below, the present appellants 3 sa323.10 had never taken stand that the said transaction of sale between Saluba and the respondent is hit by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of the Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Both the Courts have found the respondents to be in possession of the said two Gunthas of land. The relief of possession is also not claimed by the appellants. In that light of matter, even the suit without consequential relief of possession was not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as it has been held that the present respondent is in possession of the property, is entitled for relief of injunction. In that light of the matter, Second Appeals do not involve any substantial questions of law and as such dismissed. However, no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE gas/sa323.10