IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2004 Rajaram Mahadeo Rawool & Ors.... .... ...... Appellants. V/s Shivaram Tatu Ghadigaonkar & Ors... .... .....Respondents. Mr.Aditya Khandeparkar, Adv. For the appellants. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 29th JANUARY, 2009. PC: This is a second appeal filed by unsuccessful defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellant by claiming title and possession of the suit land. The source of title of the plaintiff to the suit land is allotment of the said land by the Government in favour of the plaintiff. It was admitted position before the Courts below that the suit lands were Government agreepada lands and the lands were vested in the Government. The allotment of land in favoaur of the plaintiff is of the year 1985 and the allotment order has been placed on record of the trial Court and duly proved. The plaintiff has also paid the price to the Government for the land in question. The revenue record reveals the name of the 1 respondent-plaintiff as the person in possession. Taking over all view of the matter trial court has decreed the suit and granted injunction which order is confirmed by dismissal of appeal filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in possession. However it is not disputed that the said possession is not capable of being referred to any valid title to the property. It is undisputed that the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff was challenged by the appellant and the appeal has been dismissed. It is then submitted that a writ petition is filed by the appellant and the same is pending. The pendnecy of the writ petition would have no bearing on the adjudication of the issues involved in the present appeal. Perused the impugned judgment. The same does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. No substantial question of law is involved. In the result second appeal is summarily dismissed. 29.01.2009. 2