(1) SA. 486.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2009 Ramrao S/o Wamanrao Hange, Age : 70 years, Occu.: agri., R/o Jalna Road, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Appellant Versus 1] Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik (deleted as dead) 2] Anirudha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale Age : 30 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Mandir Galli, Beed 3] Sakharam Ganesh Kulkarni, Age : 39 years, Occu.: Service, Talathi of Taraf Bobde, R/o Beed Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7193 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2009 Ramrao S/o Wamanrao Hange .. Applicant Versus Bhanudas Mohan Naik and ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant- Applicant Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale, Advocate for the Respondent no.2-Caveator CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The second appeal is filed against the (2) SA. 486.2009 judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 119 of 2008. 2] The respondents 1 and 2 were the original plaintiffs. The appellant and respondent no.3 were the original defendants 1 and 2. It was the case of the respondents 1 and 2, that they own the suit land. They asserted initially that the appellant- the original defendant, tried to encroach on the suit land and so, they filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the appellant and the respondent no.3. The appellant took up a defence that he was in possession of the suit land, as tenant of the respondents 1 and 2. He said that in 1980-81, the land was given to him on tenancy basis for a period of 10 years at certain annual rent. He said that respondents 1 and 2 had gone back on their word, and were trying to dispossess him by filing the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 in 1988, amended the plaint saying that on certain date in 1988, the appellant had dispossessed them finally. They, therefore, sought possession of the said land. The appellant continued his defence of tenancy etc. . Despite of the plea of tenancy, the trial Court did not frame issue of tenancy. The trial Court after recording evidence of both the sides, held that the respondents 1 and 2 had proved that they were in lawful possession of the suit land when (3) SA. 486.2009 they had filed the suit in 1985. He also came to a conclusion that in the month of November, 1988 the appellant forcibly dispossessed them. As regards the plea of tenancy, the trial Court observed that there was no need to frame the issue of tenancy, because the respondents 1 and 2 had already filed an application under section 8 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and their claim of tenancy was rejected till the High Court. The appellant, then approached the District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal no.119 of 2008. 3] On perusal of the judgment of the District Judge, Beed, I find that the learned District Judge, probably did not examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court properly. But he rightly observed that the issue of tenancy between the parties had gone upto the High Court, and the appellant had failed there. Although, the District Judge did not record his finding as to whether the appellant had forcibly dispossessed the respondents 1 and 2, it does not really affect the outcome of the litigation. After the appellant has lost his claim of tenancy, he lost his proprietary concern to the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2's ownership of the suit land is not in dispute and was never in dispute between the parties. So, the respondents 1 and 2's right to recover possession, is clearly established. In view of this, there is no (4) SA. 486.2009 substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and so, the appeal should fail. The Second appeal stands dismissed. 4] In view of the dismissal of second appeal no. 486 of 2009, civil application no.7193 of 2009 does not survive, and stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/22july9/SA486.09