-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.416 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.416 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.416 OF 2007 Muralidhar Babu Shinde ...Appellant vs. Bajrang Parasu Pawar ...Respondent Mr.Manoj Patil h/f Mr.A.B.Vagyani for the Appellant Mr.Rupesh Bobade h/f Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. : MARCH 19, 2008. : MARCH 19, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original defendant in a suit filed by the Respondent for perpetual injunction. The suit filed by the Respondent for perpetual injunction is based on the tile. According to the case of the Respondent-plaintiff, the suit property was owned by one Parasu Pawar. After his demise, his widow had adopted the Respondent Plaintiff in the year 1951 and that is how the Respondent claims to have become the owner of the property. It is pointed out that the father of the Appellant had filed a civil suit in respect of the same suit property which came to be dismissed and the Appeal preferred in the said suit has also been dismissed. The suit was filed on the ground that the Appellant was trying to interfere with the possession. 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant is that the findings of the courts below are based only on the revenue entries. He invited my attention to the fact that the Appellant examined one Prabhakar Mandale who was an independent witness and the said witness deposed about the -2- title and long standing possession of the Appellant. He submitted that the courts below have not at all appreciated the evidence of the said witness. He, therefore, submitted that the courts below have committed an error in passing the decree. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The courts below found that till the date of institution of the suit, the revenue record showed that the Respondent was in possession. Perusal of the Judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the Appellant pressed into service plea of adverse possession before the Appellate Court as well as the trial court. The said plea has been negatived by the courts below. Earlier suit filed by the father of the Appellant in respect of the suit property has been dismissed. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact is that the Respondent-Plaintiff has established the title and the consistent revenue record show that the Respondent-Plaintiff was in possession. Considering these aspects and considering the fact that the Appellant was claiming adverse possession, the courts below have not accepted the evidence of the witness examined by the Appellant. 4. In view of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 1649 of 2005 does not survive and the same is disposed of. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE