1 S.A.No.738/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.738 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 02.12.2010. 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had instituted suit for simpliciter injunction in respect of the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court,dismissed the appeal. The defendant has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the sale deed states that area of 77 ares excluding 11 ares has been sold to the plaintiff. In fact, no such area is 2 S.A.No.738/2010 in existence. There is only 44 ares land. At the time of sale, no measurement was done. The defendant could not have transferred more area than what he possessed. For the said purpose he relied on the judgment in a case of "Attaur Raheman Fateh Mohmmad Vs. Hari Peeraji Burud Died through Lrs. Neelabai @ Chandrakala Haribhau" 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 633 and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Vimal Wd/o Madhukar Deshmukh Vs.Nagorao Babanrao Ghodaskar" 2008 (3) Mh.L.J.868. He further submitted that even witnesses have admitted that there is a hotel of the brother of the present appellant. 3. Per contra, Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that after appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property. It is the defendant who had sold the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant is estopped from contending otherwise. The evidence on record has been considered by both 3 S.A.No.738/2010 the Courts and have rightly decreed the suit. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. It is not disputed that the defendant is the vendor of the plaintiff. The Courts on the basis of the evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property. The evidence of various witnesses and the revenue record has been scanned by the Courts and on appreciation of the same have come to a plausible conclusion. The view taken by the Courts is a plausible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view also would be possible. No doubt, a person can not transfer a better title than what he possesses. In the present case, the defendant comes with a case that the property was transferred to him excluding 11 ares but then the same was considering his holding as of 77 ares in the suit property. 5. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is 4 S.A.No.738/2010 dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.02.12.2010. asp/office/sa738.10