1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2007 Jalba s/o Govinda Sugave .. APPELLANT VERSUS Jijabai w/o Dattabuva .. RESPONDENT Shri A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 2 nd September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bilolikar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 Appellant / original plaintiff is raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 3 Plaintiff instituted suit being Regular Civil Suit no.12/1993 in the court of Civil Judge,J.D. Naigaon (Bz), claiming decree of declaration of right ownership and possession in respect of land block no. 256 and 257 to the 2 extent of 20 R and 15 R respectively situate at village Gungarala, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded. Plaintiff also seeks decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from creating interference and obstruction in possession of the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, he has purchased the disputed land from one Mahajanbuva Nempuribuva vide sale deed dt. 10­4­1978 and since then he is in possession of the property. It is contended that although he has purchased 20 R land out of block no. 256, Talathi mutated name of defendant in respect of 10 R land. However, it is contended that defendant has no entitlement in relation to 10 R property out of gat no. 256. Plaintiff as such claims declaration of ownership as well as restrain order against the defendant thereby restraining him from causing interference in possession of the suit property. 4 Defendant filed written statement controverting the contentions raised by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff was owner of the property to the extent of 10 gunthas land. He has mischievously executed the sale­deed for 20 gunthas. According to the defendant, she is the daughter of one Sambhabuwa who had entitlement in respect of 10 R land out of gat no. 256. According to defendant, record i.e. Khasara Patrak for the year 1954­1955 records name 3 of her father Sambhabuwa as purchaser of the land. Property was held jointly by father of the defendant as well as predecessor in title of the plaintiff. Record of right is showing possession in respect of joint ownership of the brother in relation to the disputed property since 1954­1955 onwards. According to defendant, on the strength of the sale­deed alleged to have been executed by plaintiff, he cannot assert right over the excess land. 5 Trial court after considering the rival contentions and after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his case in respect of his possession over an area to the extent of 10 R out of land gat no. 256 and as such granted decree in his favour accordingly. There is no contest so far as entitlement of the plaintiff in relation to the land block no. 257 to the extent of 15 R is concerned. Defendant being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court preferred Regular Civil Appeal no. 34/1995 which came to be heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Biloli who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and order dt. 8­2­2002. 6 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Although plaintiff contends that he has entitlement to the extent of 20 R land 4 out of land gat no. 256, revenue record in the form of Khasara pahani Patrak shows that the predecessor in title of the plaintiff had entitlement only to the extent of 10 R land out of block no. 256. The case put up by defendant that her father had entitlement in relation to half of the property i.e. gat no. 256 appears to be substantiated by defendant by filing documentary evidence on record. Court below after appreciating evidence placed on record have arrived at proper finding which need not be disturbed in the instant appeal. Arguments advanced are essentially matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 7 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa354.07.odt