( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2009 Motya s/o Damnya Vasave and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bindibai w/o Jegala Vasave and others. RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2009 Motya s/o Damnya Vasave and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bindibai w/o Jegala Vasave and others. RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2009 Motya s/o Damnya Vasave and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bindibai w/o Jegala Vasave and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Jayant R. Shah, advocate for the appellants in all three appeals. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No. 3/Caveator in all three appeals. ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They had filed suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Basically, their case before the trial Court was that the defendants No. 3 and 4 have no concern with their family and are wrongfully claiming to be owners of the suit lands bearing survey No. 43/2 and 43/3. The suits were partly decreed by the trial Court. Simultaneously, they filed suit (R.C.S. No. 36/2003) for injunction simplicitor. However, the said suit came to be dismissed by both the Courts below holding that the appellant Motya and others were not in possession of the said lands about which injunction as sought. 3. Second appeal No. 625/2009 arising out of such concurrent findings does not involve any substantial question of law. Both the Courts have concurrently held ( 3 ) that the plaintiffs were not in possession as on the date of suit. No perversity is noticed in such a finding. Consequently, second appeal No. 625/2009 is dismissed. 4. So far as remaining two appeals are concerned, I deem it proper to formulate following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suit claim of the appellants could be dismissed only on strength of the mutation entry which was misconstrued by the Courts below ? and whether the mutation entry ought to have been held as fictitious when the defendants No. 3 and 4 had no concern with the family of the plaintiffs and there could be no rationale behind so called partition claimed by them ? (ii) Whether the first Appellate Court committed patent error while dismissing the ( 4 ) suit for declaration of ownership by reversing the decree of the trial Court on the grounds which are flimsy and unreasonable ? (iii) Whether the Courts below committed patent error while holding that the defendants No. 3 and 4 have perfected the title by prescriptive possession ? 5. Admit. 6. Print is dispensed with. Appellant to furnish private paper book within twelve weeks. 7. Call for R & P. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa625-09