( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2009 Noorjahan Begum Abdul Gaffar and others APPELLANTS VERSUS Mohammad Mukhtar Abdul Quadeer RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Sarang Joshi, advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the appellants. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. 2. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They filed suit simplicitor for injunction. The suit was decreed and injunction was stamped against the respondents. The appellants’ case before the trial Court was that the defendant was trying to dispossess them ( 2 ) from the house property. It was alleged that the suit house is inherited by them from Abdul Gaffar who was father of the plaintiff No. 1. The title of the plaintiffs was denied by the respondent (defendant). The trial Court framed issue as to whether the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession. The trial Court held that lawful possession of the plaintiffs was duly proved but not the title. However, having regard to the character of possession of the plaintiffs, it was held that denial of their rights amounted to obstruction and as such, the suit was decreed. 3. In fact, when the suit was simplicitor for injunction and was decreed to the extent of the prayer in the claim clause, the plaintiffs should not have any right to prefer appeal only against adverse findings. The appeal before the first Appellate Court was, therefore, untenable. The only issue involved in the suit for perpetual injunction is whether actual possession of the plaintiffs is referable to any lawful source. The issue of title is subsidiary in such a suit. ( 3 ) In this view of the matter, though the Courts below have rendered concurrent findings, yet, the question of title cannot be gone into in such a suit and, therefore, the appellants cannot be regarded as aggrieved persons for the purpose of entertaining the second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. 4. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application No. 12168/2009 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa819-09