1 SA11.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2011 Shri Baban Pandurang Shelake ... Appellant v/s The Tahasildar, Satara & ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.R.Mahagaonkar for the appellant. Mr.Dilip Bodake for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Satara, in Regular Civil Suit No.713 of 1994. He has filed a suit for a declaration that he is the owner of Survey No.49/2, New Gat No.169, admeasuring 66 Ares in Taluka Shelkewadi, Dist. Satara. He sought an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any obstruction to his possession over the suit land. Both the Courts below i.e. the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the plaintiff had 2 SA11.11 not proved that he had a title to the suit property and that he was in possession of the suit property. The Trial Court has in fact, in para 21, recorded that the plaintiff had admitted that Bala Babaji Shelke was the original tenant in the suit land and that after his death defendant No.4 had inherited the right. He also admitted that defendant No.4 had taken possession. He has admitted that defendant No.4 became the owner of the suit land under the B.T. & A. L. Act and that the Government has taken possession of the land under Section 84 of the B.T. & A. L. Act. Although he has challenged the possession in the pending appeal No.121 of 1991, he has not filed any proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 2. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was unable to prove his possession over the suit property and therefore have denied any relief. 3. Mr.Mahagaonkar appearing for the plaintiff submits that he had produced sufficient documentary evidence on record to establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as his father was the tenant of those lands. 4. In my opinion, this submission cannot take the 3 SA11.11 plaintiff’s case any further as it would require re-appreciation of the evidence led before the Trial Court which cannot be done in a second appeal. Apart from this, the crucial admissions of the plaintiff in his evidence leave no manner of doubt that he was not in possession of the suit property. 5. No substantial question of law arises for determination. 6. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 4 SA11.11