1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 535/2004 (Motilal Shrawan Rahangdale VERSUS Ganpat Mayaram Patle & 3 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri I.N. Choudhari, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 15, 2008. Heard Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit house. The plaintiff also sought a direction to the defendant to remove the lock on the door of the suit premises. The plaintiff then sought a relief against the Government for correction of the entries in the revenue record. According to the plaintiff, he was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from defendant no.3 on 14.02.1992 for a sum of Rs.3,500/-. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased by defendant no.3 from one Mangru on 27.11.1972 for Rs.50/-. The defendant no.2 is the son of Mangru. 2 It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in April-1992, the plaintiff had been to Nagpur to earn his bread and when he returned in January- 1993, he found one more lock, in addition to his, on the front door of the suit house. It is pleaded that the act of the defendant no.1 in putting the lock on the suit premises was illegal. The plaintiff, therefore, sought the aforesaid reliefs. The defendant no.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant no.1 that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was pleaded by the defendant that the suit house was situated on Gat No.567 and not on Gat No.568. It was, however, admitted by the defendant no.1 that originally, the suit property was belonged to one Mangru but denied the sale- deed dated 27.11.1972 in favour of defendant no.3. It was pleaded that the sale-deed executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of the plaintiff was a bogus and a forged document. The defendant no.1 sought the dismissal of the suit and also sought a permanent injunction by way of counter claim. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff proved that he was the owner of the suit property and that the defendant no.1 had illegally put his lock on the front door of the suit 3 house. The Courts found that the defendant no.3 was residing in the suit property till 1992 and he had sold the same to the plaintiff. The Courts also held that the defendant no.1 had failed to prove that he had purchased the suit property in the year 1972 as no mutation entries were effected in the name of defendant no.1 for more than 20 years after so called purchase of the property in the year 1972. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The mandatory injunction for removal of the lock was also granted in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts directed the respondent no.4, State of Maharashtra, to make the correct entries in case the plaintiff took steps as required under the law for correction of the same. I have perused both the judgments in detail. It appears that both the Courts have considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record in the right perspective to arrive at a conclusion that the sale-deed executed by Mangru in favour of defendant no.3 was prior in time, and therefore, defendant no.3 had every right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The 4 fact that no steps were taken by the defendant no.1 to get the property mutated in his name for more than 20 years, weighed with both the Courts. Though defendant no.2 was a party to the suit, he did not enter the witness box to throw light on the controversy and the defendant no.1 had also not examined him. Since the Courts had not directed the State of Maharashtra to record the entries in favour of the plaintiff and since the Courts had merely asked the Government to correct the entries on an application made by the plaintiff in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the Courts did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief of a direction to change the entries in favour of the plaintiff. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE