: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.363 OF 1998 Gopinath Mukund Surve & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Usma Hamid Rodhe & Ors. ... Respondents Mrs.Teja D. Katdare for Appellants Mr.M.S. Kadu for Respondent No.1a CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred complaining that the trial Court and the appeal Court ought to have referred the matter to the tenancy court for deciding whether the appellants were in possession of the suit lands. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, once the tenancy Court had by its order dated 28.3.1993 held that the respondents were tenants only in respect of part of the land, the respondents could not claim to be in possession of the rest of the land. 2. Both the Courts have concurrently held, as a matter of fact, that the appellants were not in possession of the suit land. Even assuming there is an order passed by the tenancy Court in their favour, it was necessary for the appellants to establish before the trial Court that in fact they were in physical possession of the suit lands. : 2 : Merely because there is an order passed by the tenancy Court indicating that the respondents are entitled to claim that they are tenants in respect of only part of the land it would not necessarily follow that they are not in possession of the rest of the land. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants that the matter ought to have been referred to the tenancy Court for deciding the possession is unsustainable. The issue of possession can always be decided by the civil Court. 3. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed.