: 1 : 1481-11-fa=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2011 Shambhu Nath Gupta & Ors. .. Appellants v/s. Munnilal Yadav & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. O.P. Singh for the appellants Mr. S.P. Srivastav for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 1st DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. By consent, the appeal is heard finally at admission stage. This appeal challenges Judgment and Decree dated 11th November, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai dismissing the appellants’ Suit No. 5110 of 1994. The appellants’ suit was for perpetual injunction. It was their case that they are in possession of the piece of land admeasuring 11x20 sq.ft. with a shed standing thereon. They stated further that this property is situated at Survey No.18, CTS No.4, Hissa No. : 2 : 1481-11-fa=.sxw 3. They further stated that this property is situated near Jarimari Temple Kurla-Andheri Road, Mumbai – 400 072. They further stated that they are stored sugarcane in the suit property and that the respondents defendants were trying to dispossess them without following due process of law. The respondents came with a case that the appellants were not in possession of property and they also said that with the help of the order of the Court, they would take possession. In view of this, the appellants were not under obligation to prove that they are in settled possession of the suit property. The learned Judge held that the appellants could not prove their case mainly because they did not describe the suit property properly. The learned Judge rightly held that describing a property by saying that it is situated in a large plot of land, which in this case is Hissa No- 3 of CTS No. 4 is not sufficient. 2. The suit property is quite small in area and could have been described with boundaries etc. The learned Judge also appreciated the oral evidence of the appellant and his witness. The witness of the appellant stated that the suit property is only a plot of land and that they used to be a STD PCO stall earlier and it was removed. The learned Judge rightly held that the evidence of the appellant was not sufficient to prove : 3 : 1481-11-fa=.sxw their possession. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Judge of the lower Court and also gone through the entire R & P, the appeal cannot be allowed. Appeal is dismissed. In view of the order passed in the First Appeal, the Civil Application is disposed of. Request for continuation of interim order passed by the Lower Court is rejected mainly because the description of the suit is not in existence on record. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)