1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2008 Babaso Abdul Naikwade ........Appellant versus Ilahi Mehboob Mokashi & anr......... Respondents. Mr. S.M. Kamble adv. for the Appellant None for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff who instituted a suit for injunction against the respondent in regard to the agricultural land forming part of the subject matter of the suit. The suit was based primarily on an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 dated 15-11-1997. Under the said agreement the defendant no.2 had permitted the plaintiff to enjoy and take benefits of four crops. The period has long before expired. Hence both the courts below have held that there cannot be grant of equitable relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 alone was not the 2 owner of the land and there were other co-owners whose ownership and possession has been recorded. The defendant no.2 appears to be a minor on the date of executing the agreement and it has been so held by the courts below. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to submit that the courts below ought to have passed a money decree in the sum of Rs. 15000/- which was the amount allegedly paid by the appellant to the defendant no.2. There is no such prayer for a money decree made by the appellant in the suit. In the absence of specific prayer for the same the trial court could not have considered the question. Be it as it may no substantial question of law emerges in this appeal for consideration. Hence second appeal is dismissed summarily. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)