1 S.A.NO.896.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.896 OF 2005 1. Isamiya S/o Ismail Patil and others ... Appellants V E R S U S 1. Harischandra S/o Shamrao and others ... Respondents ... Mr. S.V.Chandole,Advocate for Appellants None for respondent ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellants/plaintiffs had failed to show their ownership and possession over land Gut No. 512. The respondents/defendants on the other hand, could satisfactorily show that in the consolidation process the land of the appellants/plaintiffs was wrongly given number as Gut No.512, whereas the land which they possessed was wrongly given Gut No.514. In short, they stated that they are in possession of land Gut NO. 512, but the record shows that the Gut Number of their land is 514. In the deposition of the appellants' own witness, it has come on record 2 S.A.NO.896.05 that the appellants/plaintiffs possessed the land Gut No.514. This fortified the defence of the respondents and in view of many other reasons cogently recorded by the Courts below, the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. 2] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants while pressing the appeal contended that there are two important issues that would give rise substantial question of law. He said that the Civil Court could not have declared the ownership of land against the consolidation record which was prepared as per the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,1947. He particularly pointed out that the Section 36A of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide or deal with any question which is barred or under Act required to be settled,decided or dealt with by the State Government of any Officer or authority appointed under the said Act. I am afraid this argument is not acceptable because the Civil Court did not decide or deal with in such question which could have been and were required to be decided and dealt with under the Act. The Civil Court simply found that the Consolidation Officer committed error only in giving numbers to the lands of the parties. This could not have been a question contemplated under section 36A of the Act. 3] Second point raised by the learned advocate 3 S.A.NO.896.05 appearing for the appellant is that, the learned Judges of the lower Courts ignored the record and give undue importance to the oral testimony for coming to the conclusion. I do not find this acceptable. Having gone through the judgments, I found that findings are not only based on oral evidence but also on the basis of documents that are brought on record by the parties. As said above, the crux of the case was," Whether plaintiffs are owner of land Gut NO. 512 or 514? If it is shown that the appellants/plaintiffs were in possession of land Gut No.514, the appellants/plaintiffs could not had ownership and possession of other Gut number namely Gut NO.512. The appeal should therefore fail as there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ ok