1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 Bhima s/o Pandhari Sagar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Bhaskar s/o Kundlikrao Jadhav & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.P. Gude, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 2 nd MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by the original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff / appellant herein instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 234/1998 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from changing the nature of the suit plot by way of construction or escavation or demolition of construction. Plaintiff contends that defendant Bhagirathibai was inducted in suit premises as tenant. However, the 2 defendants have commenced illegal and unauthorised construction by occupying the open space infront of the said plot. It is contended that the defendants have committed breach of the agreement and are using the property for some other purpose than the one for which it was let out to them. 3 Defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. Defendants denied that deceased Bhagirathibai was inducted as a tenant and that they are utilising the property in an unauthorised manner. It is contended that father of the defendant has forcibly occupied the possession of the property since long and after his demise the defendants are in occupation thereof. Defendants claim that they have become owners of the property by virtue of adverse possession. 4 Trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his ownership in relation to the suit premises as well as induction of defendants as tenant. It is also recorded by the trial court that the defendants have perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court in view of judgment and decree dt. 12-4-2005. First appeal carried 3 by the plaintiff being Regular Civil Appeal no. 58/2007 came to be dismissed by the District Judge – 4, Latur in view of judgment and decree dt. 27-3-2008. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Plaintiff has failed to establish the case whereas the defendants were successful in establishing their continuous possession over the suit property. On consideration of the material placed on record, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The questions raised are essentially the matters in respect of appreciation of evidence. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa85.10.odt