... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.25 OF 2006 Bapu Bhau Darekar & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Balasaheb Bapu Admute & Ors. ...Respondents Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 28, 2006. DATE : MARCH 28, 2006. DATE : MARCH 28, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. Appellants are the original plaintiffs. Admittedly, the Appellants have sold land bearing old Survey No.451/2, Gat No.1871 in favour of the Respondent No.1 by registered Sale Deed dated 04th July, 1977. The dispute involved in the present suit filed by the Appellants relates to the area of 5 Ares which is admittedly covered by the Sale Deed. Contention of the Appellants-Plaintiffs is that 5 years prior to the execution of the Sale Deed as per the policy of the Government of Maharashtra, the Appellants had gifted the said area of 5 Ares to the State for the purposes of digging a community well. Further contention of the Appellants is that in view of the subsequent resolution of the Government dated ... 2 ... 28th February, 1978, the said land admeasuring 5 Ares was returned to the Appellants. The contention of the Appellants is that the Respondent No.1 could not have been placed in the possession of the said land at the time of execution of the Sale Deed as on that day the possession of the land was with the State Government. It is submitted that subsequently the Respondent No.1 did not file any suit for possession in respect of the said area of 5 Ares and therefore, the Appellants continued to be in possession of the said area after 1978. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In the Appeal, the decree has been set aside. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that admittedly possession of area of 5 Ares was not handed over to the Respondent No.1 at the time of execution of Sale Deed dated 04th July, 1977. As the Respondent No.1 has not filed suit for possession, the Appellants are in possession and are entitled for injunction for protecting their possession. 3. I have considered the submissions. The ... 3 ... Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the Appellants have failed to prove their possession over the suit property i.e. the area of 5 Ares and well situated therein. The Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the Respondents have not proved their possession and ownership over the suit property. Once it is an admitted position that the Appellants sold area of 5 Ares by registered Sale Deed dated 04th July, 1977, only on the ground that subsequently they obtained possession of the said land from the Government, the Appellants will not be entitled to discretionary relief of perpetual injunction. 4. In my view, there is no reason to interfere with discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court. There is no merit in the Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE