1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Baban Kadam ... Appellant Versus Jairam s/o Baban Kadam and another ... Respondents ... Shri.K.N. Lokhande holding for Shri. B.V.Wagh, counsel for appellant Shri. P.M. Bidada holding for Shri.V.S. Bedre, counsel for respondents ... CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 12th November, 2009 PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. The suit (R.C.S.No. 159 of 1995) for injunction simplicitor came to be dismissed. He preferred appeal (R.C.A.No.37 of 2004), which also came to be dismissed. It is pertinent to notice that the appellant claimed perpetual injunction on the basis of his lawful possession, which 2 could be referred to a will-deed dated 29.11.1989 executed in his favour by original owner Babaibai, who was his grand mother. The contesting defendants disputed the possession of plaintiff. They contended that they are in possession of western half portion of the house property, whereas the plaintiff is in possession of remaining half portion of eastern side. According to them, the plaintiff and his mother executed an agreement of sale dated 24.07.2000 in favour of defendant No.2 and her sister-in-law by name Mandabai. They agreed to purchase half portion of the house property for consideration of Rs.80,000/- and were inducted in possession of 5 R portion of block No.78 and 40 R also in block No. 127. The trial as well as the First Appellate Court accepted the defence version. Both the Courts have given findings of facts. The findings are based on material which is placed on record. There appears no perversity in such findings. Hence, this second appeal is outside the scope of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure in view of “Gurdev Kaur and others V. Kaki and others” (A.I.R. 2006 Supreme Court 1975). Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. ( V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) srm/sa287.09 3 4