1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2010 Madhav s/o Ganpati Rajegore .. APPELLANT VERSUS Keshav s/o Raghunath Rajegore & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for the respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 21st JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Respondents / plaintiffs presented suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 101/2007 claiming decree of perpetual injunction in respect of an area admeasuring 1 H and 67 R alleged to have been purchased by them from father of defendant no. 1. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the area which is purchased by them is belonging to their predecessor in title and the 2 same has been alienated in their favour for valuable consideration. 3 Defendants have controverted the contentions raised by plaintiffs firstly on the ground that the area alienated by father of defendant no. 1 infact had not fallen to his share. It is contended that there was previous suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 341/1981 presented by defendants wherein plaintiffs were also impleaded as party defendants. The suit was for partition and separate possession which was decreed by the trial court. It is contended that there was compromise subsequent to passing of the decree and by virtue of compromise the disputed area which has been alienated by Ganpati in favour of the present plaintiffs infact had fallen to the share of some other shareholder. It is also contention of the defendant that area to the extent of 43 R out of disputed portion came to be acquired by the State Government and plaintiffs have received compensation from the State Government in respect of the acquired area. As such, it is contended that plaintiffs cannot be said to be possessing an area to the extent of 1 H and 61 R. Defence raised by defendants that Ganpati has not been alloted share has not been substantiated by the defendants. Nothing is placed on record to reach conclusion that there was compromise effected subsequent to the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 344/1981. Thus, the theory put up by 3 the defendants in respect of compromise arrived at pursuant to the earlier litigation cannot be said to have been substantiated. There is also no material placed on record to prove the contention that the plaintiffs have infact received compensation in respect of 43 R acquired land. However, it has been pointed out that the compensation is infact received by some other defendants. In this view of the matter, entitlement of the plaintiffs to hold an area to the extent of 1 H 61 R cannot be disputed. It also cannot be lost sight of the fact that defendant no. 1 is son of predecessor in title of plaintiff i.e. Ganpati who has disputed entitlement of the plaintiffs to possess the area. The litigation thus, on the face of it appears to have been generated to defeat the rights of plaintiff at the instance of son of predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The courts below have after proper appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties reached finding of fact that the plaintiffs have established their case in respect of their title and possession in relation to the disputed property. Findings of fact recorded by the courts below need not be disturbed in exercise of powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 4 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa17.10.odt