1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2008 Nana s/o Bhagwanta Sonawane & others Appellants Versus Mahadeo s/o Ambadas Sonawane & others Respondents Shri N.C. Garud, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 13th August, 2009. PER COURT .: 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Respondents / defendants instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 98/2001 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of lands survey no. 75/2/1 and 75/3/1. According to plaintiffs, there was compromise amongst the share holders and in view of compromise reached in Regular Civil Suit no. 54/1999, the land in question has been allotted to the father of the plaintiffs. After demise of father, plaintiffs 2 inherited the property. However, defendants who are the adjoining land holders having landed property bearing survey no. 75/2/2 are trying to interfere in their peaceful possession. As such, plaintiffs were required to approach the court with request to grant prohibitory order against defendants. Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Defendants denied the adverse contentions raised by the plaintiffs. According to them, the suit land is in their possession since last three generations. Defendants further contend that decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 54/1999 does not bind them. Defendants as such pray for dismissal of the suit. 3 Trial court after appreciating the evidence placed on record has reached conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their case and as such granted decree in their favour by judgment and decree dt. 31-7-2003. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of defendants in Regular Civil Appeal no. 271/2003 which came to be heard and disposed of by the 3 rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar who was pleased to dismiss the same by order dt. 4-10-2004. 3 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. It transpires on perusal of the judgments that although defendants contend that the property belongs to them since last three generations, there is absolutely no evidence placed on record to substantiate their contention that the lands survey nos. 75/2/1 and 75/3/1 belong to them or was possessed by them prior to institution of the suit. Witness for the defendants has in clear terms admitted that he is not aware about the sub-division of survey no. 75 and further that the lands survey no. 75/2/1 and 75/3/1 had fallen to the share of Ambadas i.e. predecessor of the plaintiff. In view of the oral evidence placed on record by the parties and considering the documentary evidence, both the courts below have held in favour of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE dyb/sa430.08.odt 4