1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.531 OF 2009 Mohd. Taher s/o Abdul Karim, age: 59 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad, District Nanded Appellant Versus 1 Rajeshwar s/o Nagnath Koutikwar (Shetty), age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dharmabad. 2 Ravindra s/o Nagnath Koutikwar (Shetty), age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dharmabad. 3 Parmeshwar s/o Nagnath Kautikwar (Shetty), age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dharmabad. 4 Kashinath Ramanna Kautikwar, (Shetty), age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dharmabad. 5 Durpatabai w/o Vishwamber Magshelwar, age: 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o Dharmabad. Respondents Mrs.R.D.Reddy, advocate for the appellant. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th October, 2009. 2 P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by both the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit being R.C.S. No.30/2000 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against defendants in respect of land S.No.590 to the extent of 49 ares situate at village Balapur, Tq.Dharmabad, District Nanded. According to the plaintiff, land in question is an Inam land and belongs to the family of plaintiff. It is contended that notice was issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the plaintiff to deposit occupancy price and accordingly price was deposited by the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff claims his entitlement to the Inam property. 3 Defendants, however, controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff contending that the land is belonging to their forefather and they are in possession of the land since more than 50 years. It is contended by defendants that one Ramanna, father of defendant no.1, was owner of the property since prior to 1950 and after his demise, mutation entries are recorded in the name of defendant Rajeshwar. It is contended that the plaintiff has no concern with the property. 4 The trial Court, after recording evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case. As such, dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court 3 was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/2003, which came to be heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Biloli, who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dated 20.03.2004. 5 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. 6 In order to demonstrate that the disputed property is an Inam land, there is absolutely no evidence led by the plaintiff in that behalf. Plaintiff relies upon the notice issued by the Tahsildar and the payment of occupancy price, the documents at Exhibits-57 and 58. Exhibit-57 is the notice dated 27.02.1993 issued by the Tahsildar in the name of one Karim Sultan calling upon him to show cause as to why land S.No.590 shall not be taken in possession of Government. Exhibit-58 is the copy of challan under which plaintiff claimed that he has deposited the occupancy price in respect of disputed land. Admittedly, Exhibit-57 is not issued in the name of plaintiff, however, same is issued in the name of one Karim Sultan. The document Exhibit-57 and challan Exhibit-58 are not suficient to arrive at the conclusion that the land in question is inam land. As against this, defendant has placed on record the documents to demonstrate their possession since last more than 50 years. The land in question was mutated in the name of predecessor-in-title of the defendants and after his demise, same is inherited 4 by defendants. In this view of the matter, Courts below were justified in turning down the claim raised by plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa53109