1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2010 Tukaram s/o. Santram Gayke, R/o. Ganga Chincholi, Post Gond, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ....Appellant. Versus Tipa s/o. Maroti Mhaske, R/o. Gangachincholi, Tq. Ambad and others ....Respondents. Shri. N.N. Shinde, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3rd March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Shri. Kedar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. The instant appeal is presented by the original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below. The plaintiff instituted a suit, claiming decree of perpetual injunction in respect of 47 R. land out of Gat No. 12 situated at village Ganga Chincholi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. The plaintiff claims that his father and brother have purchased the suit property to the extent of 04 Acres from the land Gat No. 12 by securing registered sale deed on 30.9.1995 and 2 accordingly, the plaintiff claims that they are in possession of the property. There was some error in recording the mutation entries. As such, the plaintiff was required to approach the appellate authority and in view of the directions of the appellate authority, the entry in mutation register was taken up by revenue authority. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants, taking undue advantage of the mutation entry, were trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over 47 R. land. The plaintiff claims that Gat No. 12 admeasures 5 Acre 34 R. and the plaintiff has purchased area to the extent of 4 Acres out of it and he is entitled to remain in possession and the defendants are not supposed to obstruct or to create interference in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants controverted the arguments advanced by the plaintiff by filing written statement. 3. It transpires on perusal of contentions and material placed on record, out of total area of 5 Acre 34 R., the defendant No. 1 has purchased an area to the extent of 20 Guntas in the year 1986 whereas 20 Guntas land is purchased by him in 1994. One Sushilabai has purchased an area to the extent of 20 Guntas in 1994. The plaintiff in his deposition has admitted the aforesaid transactions. As such, it cannot be controverted that the defendant No. 1 is owner of 1 acre land and Sushilabai is owner of 20 Guntas land. The dispute appears to be in respect of an area to the extent of 47 R. acquired by the State Government. The plaintiff in his plaint itself has contended that an area 3 to the extent of 47 R. has been acquired by the State Government from northern side. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot lawfully claim his entitlement over the area to the extent of 4 Acre out of the disputed property. After considering all the sale deeds effected in favour of defendants and Sushilabai and acquisition of land by the State Government in respect of area to the extent of 47 R., the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court arrived at proper and logical conclusion. I do not find any error or infirmity in the reasons recorded by the Courts below. The arguments advanced are essentially matter of appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed summarily. 4. In view of dismissal of appeal, civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/sa139.10