FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Kumbhakoni, advocate for Appellant. Shri P.K. Hushing, advocate for Respondent no.1. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 12th August, 2004. DATE : 12th August, 2004. DATE : 12th August, 2004. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. the Appellant is the Defendant no.1 and his real brother Respondent no.1 is the Original Plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the name of Respondent no.1 alone was entered in cultivation coloumn of the suit land till the year 1965 and from the year 1965 the name of only Appellant is appearing in the revenue record. In a suit for injunction filed by Respondent no.1, the Trial Court passed decree in favour of 2 Respondent no.1. However, in appeal preferred by the present Appellant, the Appellate court modified the decree and directed that appellant should bee restrained from interfering with the joint cultivation and enjoyment of Respondent no.1 in the suit property. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that no evidence whatsoever was produced by Respondent no.1 to show that he was in possession of the suit land. And therefore, the suit was not maintainable and the Respondent no.1 ought to have filed a suit for partition. 3. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding that admittedly till the year 1965 name of Respondent no.1 was appearing in the cultivation column and there is no mutation entry on record to show as to how the name was deleted and the name of the Appellant was mutated. The Appellate Court has relied upon the admission given by witness no.1 examined by the Appellant that in the year 1965, the wife of Respondent no.1 expired and 3 his children were minor. Therefore, the Respondent no.1 was mentally disturbed. As a result, from the year 1965, the Respondent no.1 started managing the affairs of the family. In view of this material on record, the Appellate court found that the Appellant and Respondent no.1 were in joint possession and enjoyment and cultivation of the suit land and therefore decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of Respondent no.1 was modified. 4. In view of finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court which is neither perverse nor illegal, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. C.C. expedited. sd/- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE