1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1757 OF 2008 Shri Karbhari Hari Dhame ...Appellant. v. Popat Bhimaji Dhame Since deceased through his Lrs. 1A Smt. Vithabai Poapat Dhame & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Rameshwar N. Gite, adv. For the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Sabrad, adv. for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C and 3 to 5. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The present appellant is the original plaintiff. He claimed that he is the owner of the suit land gat nos.148 and 149 situated at village Kundewadi and he is also in possession of the same since consolidation of the lands and the defendants were trying to interfere in his possession. Therefore, he filed suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. According to the defendants, original survey nos. 476/5 and 476/1 belonged to father of the present plaintiff and these lands were purchased by the father of the defendant from the father of the plaintiff in 1962 and since then the defendant’s father was in 2 possession and thereafter defendants are in possession of the same. In the Consolidation these two lands were given gat nos.148 and 149. Even though in the record for gat nos.148 and 149, name of the plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the lands, lands were infact in possession of the defendants and the possession had not changed hands after consolidation of the old survey numbers. The trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit land. Plaintiff preferred regular civil appeal no.13 of 2007. That appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal. 3 There is concurrent finding of the fact by both the Courts below against the plaintiff. Besides this, in his evidence, plaintiff admitted that this land was sold away by his father to the father of the defendant in 1962. His claim the property is only on the basis of entry taken in his favour at the time of consolidation of the lands in 1972. It is difficult to understand how the land ,which was sold away by his father to the father of the defendant, could be again recorded in the name of the plaintiff after consolidation of the lands. Plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that at the time of consolidation of the lands, some of his others lands was given to the defendants and, therefore, these land of two gat 3 numbers, though belonged to the defendants, was allotted to the plaintiff. In absence of any such plea, it is difficult to imagine that suit land could have been transferred to the plaintiff. Possibly, mistake was committed by the consolidation officer in recording name of the plaintiff at the time of consolidation . In these circumstances, I find no substance in the present appeal. No question of law is involved in the appeal. 4 Therefore the appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is disposed off, Civil Application No.1757 of 2008 for temporary injunction does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)