( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (st) NO. 15436 OF 2009 Girdharilal s/o. Kanhayalal Kasat and ors. .. Applicants Versus Motilal s/o. Kanhayalal Kasat .. Respondent Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.S. Bajaj for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 06.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri C.K. Shinde for the applicants. He drew my attention to para 7 of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.436 of 2007 on 16.02.2009 and argued that the Court is bound to consider not only possession but also title while considering the question of issuance of ( 2 ) injunction. He argued that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not consider the question particularly the effect of the compromise that was recorded in Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1979. 2. Adv. Shri Shinde relies upon the case of Ganesh D. Daivajna V/s. Prakash S. Salkar, 2000 (3) Mh.L.J.347. He referred to para 12 of the case. It is observed by the Single Bench of this Court after referring to some judgments of this Court that prima facie the question of possession presupposes lawful possession and for adjudication of that question whether finally or at interlocutory stage, the inquiry into title, right, interest or status of plaintiff is not foreign to the subject matter. It is further observed that both the Courts below did not apply their mind to the basic point which was required to be considered that is, as to who has right to be in possession pending the decision on merits of the suit. 3. However, I refer to case of Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. V/s. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. And anr., 2004 AIR SCW 4205, in para 8 of the case their Lordships observed as ( 3 ) follows:- “8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. .......” 4. In view of above, in my opinion, this is not the ( 4 ) case where review can be considered. In a suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor, question is who is in the settled possession of the property and both Courts concurrently held against the appellant. Hence, the application for review is rejected. 5. In view of disposal of this Review Application, Civil Application (St) No. 15436 of 2009 does not survive. Hence, the Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ra47.09