1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL Nos. 1318 & 1319 OF 2004 Ramchandra Sakharam Nalawade & ors ........Appellants versus Babutai Dagadu More & ors. ........ Respondents. Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the Appellants Mr. L.S. Gaikwad for the respondents. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 20th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kate learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gaikwad for all respondents. 2. The appellants are original Plaintiffs. They filed regular civil suit no. 538/93 for perpetual and mandatory injunction. The trial court decreed the suit so far as Plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are concerned. Suit of Plaintiff no.5 was however dismissed. 3. Two appeals came to be filed before the lower Appellate court. The original defendant namely the present respondents preferred regular Civil Appeal no. 161/00 and the original plaintiff no.5 along with other plaintiffs preferred regular 2 Civil Appeal no. 163/00. The lower Appellate Court allowed the regular Civil Appeal no. 161/00 which was filed by the respondent/original defendant and dismissed regular Civil Appeal no. 163/00 which was filed by original plaintiff no.5 along with other plaintiffs. 4. The present Second Appeal no.1318/04 is filed challenging the lower appellate court's decree in regular Civil Appeal no. 163/00 and Second Appeal No. 1319/04 is filed challenging the lower appellate court's decree in regular Civil Appeal no. 161/00. 5. In my considered view the Second Appeal no.1318/04 has no merit. The lower appellate court has correctly passed the order and dismissed regular Civil Appeal no. 163/00 filed by the plaintiff no.5 and other plaintiffs. Plaintiff no.5 purchased property from plaintiff no.10. Both the courts below concurrently held that plaintiff no. 10 had no reliable interest in the suit land and the same belong to Krishnabai defendant no.2 and her cousin brother Reghunath. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out anything so as to show that this finding is not correct. The Second Appeal no.1318/04 therefore deserves to be dismissed, and it is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application no. 1799/04 does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 6. So far as Second Appeal No.1319/04 is concerned, in my opinion, same involves substantial question of law. The trial 3 court in this regard decreed the suit of plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to 9 which decree is challenged by the defendant/respondent in lower Appellate Court in regular Civil Appeal no. 161/00. The lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal of the respondent/defendant and therefore this Second Appeal. 7. Perusal of the lower court's judgment reveals that the plaintiff nos. 1 ,3 and 9 purchased the property not from plaintiff no.10 but from defendant no.2 and Reghunath Nalawade. Plaintiff nos.1 and 3 subsequently alienated the property to Plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 and plaintiff no.9 alienated the property to plaintiff nos. 6,7 and 8. Therefore I am of the primafacie opinion that there is merit in S.A. no.1319/04 and the same is admitted on following substantial question of law. i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the appellants failed to prove their title and lawful possession over the suit land without taking into consideration the registered sale deeds executed and duly proved ? (R.V. More, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1800 OF 2004 4 IN SECOND APPEAL No. 1319 OF 2004 Ramchandra Sakharam Nalawade & ors ........Appellants versus Babutai Dagadu More & ors. ........ Respondents. Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the Appellants Mr. L.S. Gaikwad for the respondents. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 20th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: Rule, Rule returnable after six weeks. (R.V. More, J.)