SRJ 1 sa-913-03.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.913 OF 2003 Shri Vithal C. Bhange (since deceased) through his LR s. & Others .. Appellants. V/s. Shri Ambadas R. Bhange & Others .. Respondents. Shri N.P.Shimpi i/b. Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar, for Appellants. Shri S.S.Salunkhe, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : JULY 22,2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard Shri Niranjan Shimpi, learned counsel for Appellants and Shri S.S. Salunkhe, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. This appeal is preferred by Original Defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2002 passed learned II Additional District Judge, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No.206 of 1997, arising from the judgment and decree dated 14th May, 1997 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Madha in Regular Civil Suit No.176 of 1980. SRJ 2 sa-913-03.sxw 3. By this judgment, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and restrained the Appellants/Original Defendants permanently from interfering or obstructing the peaceful possession of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 over the land bearing Gat No. 329 admeasuring 1 hectar 35 ares, situate at Madha, Taluka Madha, District Solapur. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (herein after referred to as the Plaintiffs) instituted the suit against the Appellants (herein after referred to as the Defendants), contending, inter alia, that they are the owners and possessors of Gat No.329, admeasuring 1 hector 35 ares. This land was purchased by registered sale deed dated 17th April, 1979 from one Shri Ganpat Namdeo Bhange and since then they are exclusively in possession of the said land. It was further asserted that Defendants have no right, title or interest in the said land, yet they are obstructing the Plaintiffs possession. The Plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit for the perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendants from obstructing their peaceful possession over the said land. 5. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that the total area of Gat No.329 is 1 hectar 35 Ares. It is their case that the vendor of the Plaintiffs Shri Ganpat Bhange made a fabricated document showing that the government land admeasuring 19 Gunthas had been granted by the Government to him and, therefore, he started claiming title over the said 19 Gunthas. The dispute between the SRJ 3 sa-913-03.sxw parties is about 19 Gunthas. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues at Ex. 22. Considering the material on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. Against that decision, the defendants preferred appeal. This appeal was dismissed and, therefore, the Defendants have come to this Court by way of Second Appeal. 7. In support of this Appeal, Shri Shimpi, relying upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 submitted that the order passed by Tahsildar on 11th December, 1974, allotting 19 gunthas to the Plaintiffs was without jurisdiction. The Tahsildar had no authority to deliver possession of 19 Gunthas to the Plaintiffs. The vendor of the Plaintiffs Ganpat Bhange fraudulently obtained the order from Tahsildar on 11th December, 1974. On the other hand, Shri Salunkhe submitted that the Deputy Collector directed the Tahilsar, Madha to conduct the enquiry and submit his report. On satisfaction of report submitted by the Tahilsar, Madha the then S.D.O. accepted the report and directed the then Tahsildar to accord the alluvial land to the adjacent occupant Shri Ganpat Bhange. I have considered the rial contentions. 8. It is material to note that pursuant to the order dated 11th December,1974 Panchanama was made on 30th December, 1974 at Ex.82. The Appellate Court in para 14 of the impugned judgment recorded that panchanama dated 30th December, 1974 Ex.82 shows that Defendant No.1 Shri Vithal SRJ 4 sa-913-03.sxw (since deceased) was present at the time of panchanama. It was further recorded that Defendant No.1 Shri Vithal was present at the time of delivery of the said possession of alluvial land of 19 Gunthas to Shri Ganpat Bhange. If at all, 19 Gunthas of the land was out of the land purchased by the Defendants, they would certainly challenged the allotment of the said 19 Gunthas in favour of the Plaintiffs. However, the Defendants did not challenge the same at any point of time. 9. Considering the above position, in my opinion,it is not open to the Defendants to contend that the allotment of disputed 19 Gunthas land in favour of the Plaintiffs on 11th December, 1974 is illegal. The Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Consequently, Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR,J.)