1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.449 OF 2010 Sadul S/o Issue Mujawar through L.Rs. Sufiyabee W/o Sadul Mujawar and others ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for the appellants. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.A.G.Qureshi, advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.S.B.Gastgar, advocate for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.10.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard Mr.Kazi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Qureshi, learned counsel for 2 the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have assailed the said findings before this Court. 3. Mr.Kazi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that for the first time behind the back of the appellants, the mutation entries 130 and 131 were recorded in favour of the defendants. On the basis of the same, in the year 2000, the plaintiffs were dispossessed and as such filed suit for possession and declaration of ownership. According to the learned counsel in the year 1970, the partition had taken place and the suit land S.No.109 was allotted to the plaintiffs. The defendants have illegally dispossessed the 3 plaintiffs and as such had filed the suit. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and also has given erroneous finding on the issue of limitation. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts. 5. It has been observed by the Courts that earlier the defendant No.5 had filed RCS No. 184/1979 claiming his title over the said property. The said suit was decreed and defendant No.5 was declared as owner of 4 acres 25 gunthas out of S.No.109/B. Even the plaintiffs in their evidence admitted that land admeasuring 9 acres 25 gunthas out of S.No.109 is entered in the name of defendant Baban. Even the Pahanipatrak for the year 1954-55 indicates the possession of Baban over the suit land S.No.109 to the extent of 9 acres 25 gunthas. It has also been recorded that P.W.3 in his evidence admitted that in 1989, defendant Baban was in possession 4 of the suit land. Even the plaintiffs have admitted that the land on the southern side of the stream belongs to Nabi and Nabi took borewell in the said land about 20 years back. The Courts have taken into consideration the admissions and the old documentary evidence and had come to the conclusion that the defendants are the legitimate owners and possessors of the respective portions of the suit land. 6. In light of the same, no substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa44910 5