1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.527/2009. (Rajendra s/o Shridhar Hire Vs. Sanjay s/o Shridhar Hire) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RK Temkar, Advocate for appellant; Mr.NB Ghute, Adv. h/for Mr. NV Gavare, Adv. for R.2 & 3. ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30 th March, 2010. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The dissatisfied plaintiff (appellant herein) with the concurrent findings of both the courts below is in Second Appeal. A substantial question of law that Mr. Temkar formulates is, in spite of the plaintiff being owner and names of the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 being deleted, however, the Courts have overestimated the fact and erroneously accepted possession of the defendants. 3) On analyzing the evidence, as read by learned Counsel from the Judgment under challenge, I find that justifiable reasons are assigned by the courts to accept the evidence on behalf of the defendants, supported with the revenue entries and the plaintiff’s failure to 2 demonstrate his possession. The mistakes created in the evidence about the cultivation of the property, which was a pivotal aspect in the matter, added fuel against the plaintiff. The appeal does not project any substantial question of law to construe that there is mis- construction of document resulting in error of law or there is misappropriation of evidence to seek interference. 4) Incidentally, during the course of submissions, Mr.Temkar has stressed that before the revenue authorities, the plaintiff has subsequently succeeded. If it is so, it is for the plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceedings and take recourse as permissible under the law. 5) Second Appeal is sans merit, it is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/sa527.09