1 AO 2 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 02 OF 2011 1. Anil s/o Bajirao Jambhulkar, Aged 33 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Chandu s/o Shivram Jambhulkar, Aged 25 years, Occupation Agriculture, 3. Ashok s/o Pira Jambhulkar, Aged 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, 4. Manik s/o Bhaga Jambhulkar, Aged 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5. Bajirao s/o Kisan Jambhulkar, Aged 56 years, Occupation Agriculture, 6. Shivram s/o Kisan Jambhulkar, Aged 66 years, Occupation Agriculture, 7. Pira s/o Kisan Jambhulkar, Aged 61 years, Occupation Agriculture, 8. Bhaga s/o Kisan Jambhulkar, Aged 68 years, Occupation Agriculture, All resident of Gavhanwadi, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar Appellants V E R S U S 1. Shirish s/o Ramnath Sarda, Aged 65 years, Occupation Agriculture, Respondents 2 AO 2 OF 2011 2. Shobha s/o Shirish Sarda, Aged 57 years, Occupation Agriculture, Both resident of Kapadbazar, Shirur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Anand Bhandari, Advocate for respondents CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 1st February, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal from Order is filed against the order dated 24th December, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda, in Special Civil Suit No. 53 of 2010. 2. The respondents filed the suit for declaration of ownership and for perpetual injunction against the present appellants. It is common ground that area ad-measuring 2 H 85 R was sold through registered sale deeds by the appellants No. 5 to 8 to the respondents. It is also common ground that immediately thereafter necessary application for mutation was made before the revenue authorities and the same was granted. The case of the respondents is that they are in settled possession of the suit land since 1991. They have developed land and are cultivating the same. They learnt that the appellants No. 5 to 8 executed sale deeds in respect of the suit land in favour of the appellants No. 1 to 4, who happened to be their own sons. They further asserted that due to this, the appellants No. 1 to 4 threatened their possession of the suit land. On this cause of action, they filed the suit for declaration of their ownership and perpetual injunction for getting interim relief of temporary injunction. 3 AO 2 OF 2011 They moved the application, which was marked as 'Exhibit – 5', in the lower Court. 3. The learned Judge of the trial Court accepted the case of the respondents that they are in settled possession. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants/original defendants contended that the learned Judge of the trial Court could not have ignored the fact that despite of the sale deeds in 1991, the names of the appellants No. 5 to 8 remained on 7/12 extract. He thereby contended that since the names of the vendors were not removed from 7/12 extract, they remained in possession. He also contended that the sale deeds of 1991 were sham and were executed only to create encumbrance on the property and for security of certain loan transaction. He contended that the entry in 7/12 extract thus clearly established the fact that the respondents did not take possession of the land though the sale deeds were executed in their favour. I am not inclined to accept this argument at all. If the mutation was effected, it was effected for all purposes including the possession. There was no possibility of taking mutation entry only for the purpose of recording ownership separate from the possession. The possession follows title. Thus, if the respondents got the title of land, they were bound to have possession of the land. The appearance of the names of the appellants No. 5 to 8 in the 7/12 extract, is apparently an error on the part of revenue officers. Once the mutation was allowed, the names of the vendors ought to have been removed from the 7/12 extract. So, the argument of the appellants is not acceptable. 4. Besides, to favour the title and mutation entry, the respondents annexed number of documents to show that they are in actual possession of the land. They have explained in the plaint as to how they 4 AO 2 OF 2011 cultivate the land utilizing water of a well, which is situated in adjoining land. As against this, the appellants/defendants tried to place reliance on affidavits of adjoining land owners, who stated on oath that the suit land is still in possession and use of the appellants. The learned Judge of the trial Court did not deal with these affidavits. But, I think, such affidavits are generally filed from both the sides to assert possession. These are word against word. What is required to be appreciated is the circumstances and the documents supporting the claims. In this case, the respondents are prima facie in possession of suit land since 1991, which is a long time back about 20 years. So, the appellants' defence and assertion of possession is not believable. The Appeal from Order should therefore fail. In view of this, The Appeal from Order stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of Appeal from Order, Civil Applications No. 32 of 2011 and 1278 of 2011 stand disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ao/2/11/1/2/11/ok