1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 867 of 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO. 867 of 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO. 867 of 2007 Ganpati Daji Nitave .. Appellant V/s. Sopan Nana Nitage .. Respondent Mr.V.S.Talkute for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : JULY 14TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 14TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 14TH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 11th September, 2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2006. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff in the suit for injunction filed by him in respect of the 22 R land which was allotted to him by the Tahsildar concerned, which suit came to be dismissed. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2006 which also came to be dismissed and the Judgment and decree of the Trial 2 Court came to be confirmed. 3. In so far as the claim of the Appellant Plaintiff is concerned, the evidence of one Khobare the Talathi of the concerned village Nitawewadi was adduced on behalf of the Defendants. In his evidence, he has mentioned that he visited the said site in question on 28th August, 2002 and he conducted the site inspection of the alluvial land situated near the land of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. On such measurement, it was found that the Plaintiff was in possession of 3R Alluvial land, the Defendant was found in possession of 10R Alluvial land and one Aba Nitawe was found in possession of 30R land. Pursuant to the said measurement, panchanama and map were prepared. Pertinently, during the course of the said measurement though statements of the parties were recorded, the Plaintiff did not make any statement before the said Talathi. The Defendant and the said Aba Nitawe produced survey maps in respect of land in their possession whereas the Plaintiff did not. 4. Both the courts below therefore on the basis of the evidence that was adduced, came to a conclusion that the evidence of the said witness could not be 3 disbelieved. Both the Court below therefore recorded a finding of fact as regards the possession of the Appellant. The suit of the Plaintiff is one for injunction and therefore in the said context the issue of possession assumed importance. As indicated above both the Courts below concurrently held that the Appellant/ Plaintiff was not in possession of 22R land, but was in possession of only 3 R land. 3. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 4. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.]