1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 322 OF 2010 Shaikh Chand S/o Sk. Yasin & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the appellants Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P., for respondent / State CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : Heard Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the appellant. The present appellant had filed suit for declaration of ownership and injunction against the present respondents contending that the plaintiff is the owner of 2 Acres and 20 R land, out of the said land over an area of 90’x52’ feet there is a mosque and grave yard is situated in the said portion. The plaintiffs have sold 17 R land. 2 2. Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the pleadings of the parties and on stray statement dismissed the suit, the respondents are concerned with 90’x52’ feet area, and there was no impediment to declare the plaintiffs owners of the remaining area. As plaintiffs were in possession, injunction should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants do not have any right to distrub the possession of the plaintiff except for an area of 90’x52’ feet. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgments passed by both the Courts. The Courts below have taken into consideration the deposition of the plaintiff himself, wherein he very specifically admitted that out of an area of 2 Acres 20 Guntha, he had earlier sold 17 Guntha and in remaining area Nanded-Hingoli road passes through the said Survey number and he has sold about 2 Acres of land. He has also admitted 3 that he had never measured the land. If this evidence is taken, in fact, no land remain with the plaintiff. Though there is no pleading of this fact, but this statement is of the plaintiff himself, as such, from his own statement he has contradicted his case which is pleaded in the plaint. Pleadings are are required to be proved by the evidence. Courts have taken into consideration various extracts filed on record, so also the evidence led by the plaintiffs. 4. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal, as such, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 6582 of 2008 does not survive, and same is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*322.10 SA