1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10248 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2006 Babruwan S/o Rangnath Suryawanshi .. Applicant Versus Bhausaheb S/o Pangnath Suryawanshi and others .. Respondents Shri S. B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Anil Patil, Advocate h/f Shri D. N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . This is an application for stay of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of plaintiffs for declaration and injunction holding exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. 2. Shri Bhapkar, learned counsel for the applicant contended 2 that, the judgments passed by the Courts below are perverse. Even the witnesses have supported the case of the defendant. According to him, the applicant and the non applicants are brothers and no injunction can be clamped against co-owners. According to him the findings of the Courts below cannot sustain in view of the admission given by P.W. 2 and 3 in their depositions. 3. Admittedly, the injunction is running against the present applicant since 08th March, 2008. The Trial Court on evaluating the complete evidence documentary as well as oral has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their exclusive possession over the suit property. The Trial Court even in para 16 and 17 of the judgment has considered the documents i. e. vyavastha patrak and the partition deed to come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession. 4. Both the Courts have held plaintiffs in exclusive possession and also it is fact that since 08.03.2006 the injunction is clamped against the present applicant. 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no 3 case is made out to stay the impugned judgment and decree. As such, the civil application is rejected. [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Sept. 10