1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1764 OF 2008 Balkrishan Shivaji Patil......Appellant versus Smt. Lilabai Shantaram Patil........ Respondent. Mr. S.U. Dhakephalkar for the Appellant CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the original defendant. Respondent's suit for injunction restraining appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit property is decreed by the trial court. Lower appellate Court confirmed the decree. Therefore the present Second Appeal. 2. There is no dispute that the appellant's nephew by name Srikant was in separate possession of the suit property who created tenancy in favour of respondent no.1. 32M certificate under Tenancy Act is also issued in favour of the respondent. Both the lower courts below in appreciation of 2 evidence on record, concurrently recorded the finding that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Thus respondent/plaintiff's possession referable to lawful title is established. The lower courts below therefore rightly decreed the suit of the respondent. So far as encroachment is concerned, that was also rightly directed to be removed, in view of the fact that 32M certificate is granted to the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Mr. Dhakephalkar submitted that a writ petition challenging 32 G proceeding is pending in the High Court. However, in my considered view even in case the appellant/defendant succeeds in the writ petition, in that case also he has to file suit for possession, as the respondent/plaintiff found to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore there is no merit in this submission. 5. Next submission of Mr. Dhakephalkar that the mutation entry neither create or extinguish any right of the parties in the land. This submission has also no merit. Since the respondent/plaintiff does not claim any title on the basis of only mutation entry, but same is claimed on the basis of 32G proceeding and a certificate under sec. 32 M. In my view , the lower courts below approached the matter from correct point of view. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. The Second appeal is therefore dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 3 (R.V. More, J.)