SSM 1 903.sa.72.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2011 Mr. Dattatraya Baburao Waman and another .... Appellants Versus Mr. Sudhir Shivajirao Khaire and others ....Respondents ________ Mrs. Vaishali K. Jagdale for the Appellants. CORAM: RAJESH. G. KETKAR, J. DATED : MARCH 4, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mrs. Vaishali K. Jagdale, learned Counsel for the Appellants. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 28 th September, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, district- Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 1989 as also the judgment and decree dated 20 th September, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007. By SSM 2 903.sa.72.11 these judgments, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the Respondent No.1 for perpetual injunction and the Appellants were restrained for causing interference / objections to the Plaintiffs possession / cultivation of Block No. 676 situate within the limits of Khodad, Taluka – Junnar, District – Pune. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that on 1 st February, 1989, Appellants had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1989 and the learned trial Judge granted ad interim order restraining Anant Baburao Waman -Vendor from alienating the suit land. Despite of this order, the said Aanant Baburao Waman executed Sale Deed dated 7 th February, 1989 in favour of the Respondent No. 1- Plaintiff. She, therefore submitted that the Sale Deed executed by the Vendor in favour of the Respondent No. 1 is null and void. Apart from that, she submitted that the Respondent No. 1 in collusion with the Revenue Authorities got his name entered in the revenue record. SSM 3 903.sa.72.11 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The learned District Judge has considered the material on record and discussion from para 11 onwards would indicate that in various suits filed by the Appellants against the Respondent No.1, all were decided in favour of the first respondent. Even the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities were decided against the Appellants. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the ad-interim order dated 1 st February, 1989 in Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1989 is also not well founded as ultimately the said suit was dismissed in 1996 and the Appeal preferred against it was also dismissed. It can't be said that the judgments of Courts below are either perverse or were rendered in utter disregard of relevant material. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts of the appreciation of evidence on record. 4. In my opinion, no substantial question of law is arises in the Second Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal SSM 4 903.sa.72.11 of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 165 of 2011 filed in the Second Appeal does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (RAJESH. G. KETKAR, J.)