1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.402 OF 2009 Balaji s/o Shivaji Patade, R/o. Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... Appellant. Versus Rajendra s/o Maruti Bhanje, R/o. Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ...Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5826 OF 2009 ... Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for the appellant. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original plaintiff. 2. Present Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 06-04-2009 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2 Latur in R.C.A. No. 12/2009 arising out of the 2 judgment and decree dated 11-11-2008 passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Latur in R.C.S. No.701/2006. Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of Grampanchayat House No.5228 of village Murud admeasuring east west 40 feet and south north 35 feet. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant started obstructing his peaceful possession in respect of the suit property and therefore, he filed R.C.S. No. 701/2006 for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent- original defendant from obstructing his peaceful possession. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed out that the appellant purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 14-01-2004 at Exhibit-37 in which it is specifically stated that previous owner of the said property handed over vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The trial Court as well as lower 3 appellate Court considered documentary evidence on record. The respondent - original defendant produced sale deed dated 29-08-1989 at Exhibit-62 in which it is specifically stated that Mahadeo Maruti Bhange sold the suit property in the year 1989 and handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the same to respondent - original defendant. Sale deed dated 29-08-1989 is registered document. It is to be noted that the plaintiff and defendant both claimed possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deeds at Exhibit-37 and 62. Sale deed at Exhibit-62 is in favour of the defendant in which it is specifically stated that he obtained possession of property on the date of execution of the said sale deed. The plaintiff also examined witnesses in support of his contention. But considering the registered sale deed dated 29-08-1989 in favour of the defendant in which it is specifically stated that he obtained possession on the date of execution of the sale deed itself, there is no question of interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to produce any 4 cogent evidence on record to show that after purchasing the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 14-01-2004 from Mahadeo Maruti Bhange, the plaintiff obtained vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property from the vendor and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the appellant - original plaintiff failed to prove his possession in respect of the suit property. In any case, third person is not entitled to injunction against true owner. Considering the findings of both the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law in the present Second Appeal and hence, same is dismissed summarily. 4. In view of the dismissal of present Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and same is rejected. (K.K. TATED), JUDGE sut/JUN09/sa402.09