1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.114 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2003 Inus Alisha Shaikh Kadar Kadari & Shaikh Inus Shaikh Kudalkar .. Appellant V/s. Suleman Abdul Rajak Nashandar .. Respondent Mr.P.L.Majgaonkar for the Appellant/Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 4TH, 2008. P.C. This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 6th September, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2 Sindhudurg-Oras by which Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kankavli dated 2nd February, 1995 came to be confirmed. 2. The Appellant is the original Defendant in the said Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 1980 which was filed by the Respondent herein for an injunction in respect of lands bearing survey No.208-7B of Village Varvede, Taluka Kankavali, District Sindhudurg. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the said lands have been occupied by his family as tenant since long past. The Plaintiff relied upon the tenancy proceedings being 4 of 1978 in which an order came to be passed by the A.L.T. Which was confirmed by the S.D.O. Thereafter the Appellant herein challenged the same before the Maharashtra Industrial Tribunal which proceedings were pending at the time when the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 1980 came to be filed. 3 3. The issue whether in view of the proceedings before the M.R.T., suit for injunction could be entertained, the said issue finally reached this Court at the interlocutory stage and this Court held that the proceeding pending before the M.R.T. Could not detain the hearing of the suit filed for injunction simplicitor. 4. On the other hand, it was the case of the Defendant that he has purchased the suit property from Vasant P.Desai who was the landlord by sale deed dated 30th November, 1977 and since prior to the said suit he has been in possession of the suit property. 5. The parties went to Trial, and on the basis of the evidence recorded before the Trial Court, the Trial Court held that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on which he has 4 catting Kavals for using the same in the other tenanted land. The Trial Court also relied upon the 7x12 extracts of the other lands wherein the Plaintiffs and his ancestors were shown as tenants. The Trial Court rejected the case of the Defendant No.1 of possession on the ground that the Defendant No.1 had take inconsistent pleas. In the written statement, he has averred that he has been in possession of the suit land from the date of sale deed. However, in his evidence i.e. in his examination in chief, he has stated that he has been in possession of the suit property prior to the sale deed. The Trial Court also held that the Defendant had not proved the sale deed by leading evidence as is known to law. The Trial Court therefore held that the Plaintiff was in possession and his possession needed to be protected. The Trial Court therefore decreed the suit by its Judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1995. 5 6. The Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1995, filed an Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 1997. The said Regular Civil Appeal came to be dismissed and the findings recorded by the Trial Court came to be confirmed and resultantly the decree passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court as indicated hereinabove is dated 6th September, 2002. 7. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 8. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application NO.141 of 2003 does 6 not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J.]