1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 464 OF 2010 Sopan S/o Vishwanath Kolekar, Aged 65 yrs, Occu. Agri., R/o Kakaramba-Wadi, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad .. APPELLANT VERSUS Mathurabai W/o Nivrati Patil, Aged 62 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Kakaramba-Wadi, now at Kakramba, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ..RESPONDENT .. Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for appellant CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 2nd September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- The present appellant/original plaintiff had filed suit for simplicitor injunction against the respondent. It is the case of the plaintiff, that he was put in possession by Dhondabai on batai basis in the year 1998, after the death of Nivruti in 1997. 2 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit, and have observed that the plaintiff has not been in a position to prove his possession, nor any details of the alleged Batai agreement have been given, even the revenue record does not support his contention. 3. Shri S.S. Choudhari, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged. The defendant has not led any evidence, as such, there is no impediment to accept the evidence led by the plaintiff. 4. It is not disputed that Dhondabai, Mathurabai and Triveni are the joint owners of the property. The plaintiff has come forward with the case, that it is only Dhondabai who had inducted Sopan in possession. The intervening transactions show that all three were exercising their right, over the suit property. If, the plaintiff claimed himself to be the tenant, in such circumstances, his name ought to have 3 appeared in the revenue record. The suit is filed in the year 2003, even till the year 2003-2004 the name of the plaintiff was never recorded in the relevant revenue record as possessor. 5. The plaintiff has also not given any details of the alleged Batai agreement. The fact that the defendants have not led any evidence would not be sufficient to establish the plaintiff's case. 6. No error can be found in the Judgments of the Courts below, and no case is made out by the appellant for interference. The Second Appeal does not involve, any substantial question of law. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 464.10SA