1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.512 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The appellants are real brothers interse. According to them, the suit lands bearing Gat No. 337 and Gat No.369 were previously owned by deceased Punjaba, who was their father as a statutory owner of Mirza Osman. The case of the defendants was that the lands were not owned by deceased Ashruba as a tenant. Defendant No.1 and one Namdeo were declared tenants when the inquiry was conducted by the Tenancy Tribunal on issue of tenancy which was referred in previous suit (RCS No.95/1972). That suit was filed by the owner of the land i.e. Mirza Osman against the defendant No.1. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court and the first appellate Court held that there was a family partition between deceased Punjaba and his brothers. It was held in 1965-66, deceased Punjaba was allotted the suit lands to his share. It is true that the tenanted land can not be transferred without leave of the Competent Authority. However, internal partition between the brothers can not be regarded as transfer for consideration. Both the Courts have rendered findings of facts holding that the plaintiffs (appellants) failed to prove their ownership and entitlement for injunction. The questions raised in the appeal relate to appreciation of evidence. Considering the ratio laid down in "Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975, the Second Appeal is outside the scope of Section 100 of the C.P.C. Hence, it is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.15.12.2009. asp/office/sa512.09