1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 100 of 2009 Bhagwan s/o Bhaurao Gunjkar Appellant V E R S U S Nagorao s/o Ramrao Shirale and others Respondents Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the appellant Mr.M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr.S.B. Ghatol, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6 Mr.A.G.Dalal, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr. P.S.Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.8 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the appellant /plaintiff’s assertion that he is in possession of the suit lands is untrustworthy. One Limbaji was common ancestor of the appellant / plaintiff and the respondents No. 1 to 6. He owned 64 acres land. The plaintiff claimed that he is one of the sons of one Bhaurao, who happened to be grand-son of Limbaji. He said, due to this relationship, his father became owner of the suit land, and thereafter, he and his brothers became owners of the same. He said, the suit lands stood in the names of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 8 to 12 in revenue record. He said, since they are related to him, they kept on promising him that they would get the lands mutated in his favour, but in vain. The appellant / plaintiff said that though he and his branch is in possession of the suit lands for last 50 years, his name is not shown on revenue 2 record. He, in the alternative, suggested that since he is in possession of the suit lands adversely to the ostensible owners / real owners shown on revenue record, he acquired title to the lands. He sought perpetual injunction against the respondents. Surprisingly, though the suit was filed against as many as ten respondents, none of them came forward to defend the suit at trial stage. The suit was decided exparte against them. The appellant / plaintiff filed his affidavit and tried to prove his case through his deposition. But, the trial Court recorded cogent reasons holding that the appellant / plaintiff cannot be believed when he said that he or his branch is in possession of the suit lands. The matter went to the appeal Court, and even the appeal Court, having regard to the long standing revenue record showing ownership and possession of the respondents, held that the appellant / plaintiff could not prove his case of possession of the suit lands. The second appeal is pressed mainly on the ground that the Courts below gave undue importance to the revenue record. It is also suggested that the appellant / plaintiff in addition to putting case of adverse possession also stated that he was owner and possessor of the suit lands because of his decendency from the original owner Limbaji. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, in addition to this, asserted that the Courts below would not have rejected the case of the appellant / plaintiff, when his affidavit filed as his evidence at trial stage has gone unchallenged without cross-examination. He said, in absence of cross-examination of the appellant at trial stage, whatever he has stated on facts viz. he was in possession of the suit lands, could not have been disbelieved. I am afraid, this argument is not acceptable mainly because the Courts below were correct in giving importance to the consistent entries in the revenue record as against the word of the appellant / plaintiff on oath. The facts of the 3 case clearly establish that though the appellant / plaintiff asserted on oath that he was in possession of the suit land and though his testimony has gone virtually unchallenged, still he cannot be believed when he said that he was in possession. I find no error in the reasoning recorded by the Courts below for rejecting the unchallenged testimony of the appellant. I do not find any substantial question of Law arises in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/sa/100/09