1 S.A. 270.08 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. V.S.Bedre, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.R.Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession in respect of 70 R. land. Both the Courts decreed the Suit. The plaintiff assailed the said Judgment in the present Appeal. 3. Mr. Bedre, learned counsel submits that in fact both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit 2 S.A. 270.08 property. In fact, the suit property is not in existence as can be vouched from the Khasra patrak. The consolidation statement is not in consonance with the Khasra patrak. In consolidation, land of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff has been increased. But, as the said land is not in existence, plaintiff can not get any right and title over the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts on appreciation of documentary evidence and oral evidence have concurrently held that the plaintiff has proved his actual physical possession over the suit property and have dealt with the matter. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 6. The plaintiff is claiming on the basis of the registered instrument of sale dated 21/12/1997 executed by his predecessor in title. It is not disputed that his predecessor in title had half share in S.No. 135, which totally comprises of 33 Acres . The predecessor in title had 16 Acres and 16 gunthas land. The plaintiff is purchaser of only 70 R. land from G.No. 316. It is not disputed that G.No. 316 is part of S.No. 135. Both the Courts have taken 3 S.A. 270.08 into consideration these aspects of the matter, so also coupled with the oral evidence and have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below is a possible conclusion. 7. In that light of the matter, no substantial question of law arises and the Second Appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 270.08