1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.230 OF 2009 Madan s/o Eknath Aatkare, R/o. Dongarkini, Tq. Patoda, District Beed and others. ... Appellants. Versus Jan Mohammad s/o Lalkhan Pathan, R/o. Dongarkini, Tq. Patoda, District Beed. ...Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4565 OF 2008 ... Mr. Rahul Dhase, Advocate, for the appellants. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Counsel appearing on behalf 2 of the respondent. 2. Present Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16-06-2007 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Beed in R.C.A. No. 85/2006 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15-04-2006 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Patoda in R.C.S. No.88/2001. Plaintiff filed R.C.S No. 88/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. Patoda for perpetual injunction against the defendants not to disturb his possession in respect of Grampanchayat House No. 358 having thirteen tin sheets and open space admeasuring 33 feet by 32 feet of village Dongarkini. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that previous owners of the suit property were one Kanif and Gorakh, sons of Pandharinath Sonawane, who had transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by executing "Daan Patra" i. e. Gift deed in the year 1999 which is registered as Daan Patra No. 128/02-12-1999. On the basis of said registered 3 document, the plaintiff is in possession of suit house property and enjoying the same. On 24-07-2001 when the plaintiff started work of marking out for basement of the suit property, at that time, the appellants - original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 unauthorisedly obstructed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit house property and challenged the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit house property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit house property. 4. It is the case of the appellants - original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the Government acquired the land from Survey No. 208(D)2 of village Dongarkini. Said Survey No. 208 is owned by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. After acquisition of the said land, Government constructed houses for homeless persons and allotted the same to the different persons. It is the case of the defendants 4 that present plaintiff is not homeless person to whom the suit property was allotted. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is unauthorisedly occupying the suit premises on the basis of "Daan Patra" executed by the original allottee. It is the case of the defendants that as per Government Resolution, there is restriction on transferring the suit property and because of violation of the Government Resolution, the defendants started obstructing peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 5. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff proved his lawful possession of the suit house bearing No. 358 of village Dongarkini on the basis of registered document i.e. Daan Patra dated 02-12-1999. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the Courts below did not consider the provisions of law properly and hence arrived at a wrong conclusion. He further submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that property in dispute is allotted by 5 the Government on the condition that the same is not transferable and in spite of the said specific Government Resolution, original owners/allottees transferred the said property by way of registered "Daan Patra" in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants produced appeal paper book in R.C.A. No. 85/2006. With the assistance of both the Counsel, I have gone through the said appeal paper book. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit house property on the basis of registered document i.e. "Daan Patra" dated 02-12-1999. The defendants failed to produce any document or / and cogent evidence to show that they have interest in the suit house property. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit house property since 1999. 7. Considering the findings of both the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal and hence, 6 same is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. 8. In view of the dismissal of present Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and same stands rejected. (K.K. TATED), JUDGE sut/JUN09/sa230.09