(1) SA. 900.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2008 1] Maulana Mohd. Sharif Raja S/o Vahedkhan, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Butcher, R/o Sadar Bazar Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, District Beed 2] Osmankhan S/o Vahedkhan, Age : 48 years, Occu.: and R/o as above 3] Bismillakhan S/o Vahedkhan Age : 48 years, Occu.: & R/o as above 4] Yusufkhan S/o Yasinkhan Age : 73 years, Occu.: & R/o As above 5] Gafurkhan S/o Ibrahimkhan, Age : 63 years, Occu.: & R/o as above 6] Ismailkhan S/o Ibrahimkhan Age : 58 years, Occu.: & R/o as above 7] Hamidkhan S/o Gafurkhan Age : 38 years, Occu.: and R/o As above .. Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) Versus 1] Yeshwant S/o Narhari Bhujange, Age : 63 years, Occu.: Business (Bhoi), R/o Sadar Bazar, Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, District : Beed (2) SA. 900.2008 2] Sow Shakuntalabai w/o Yeshwant Bhujange, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Household and R/o as above 3] Hiraman S/o Narhari Bhujange, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Business, R/o As above 4] Aniskhan S/o Yusufkhan Age : 43 years, Occu.: Butcher R/o Sadar Bazar, Ambajogai Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed 5] Yasinkhan S/o Amirkhan died 6] Mahmodkhan S/o Amirkhan died .. Respondents Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for the Appellants Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent no.1 None present for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 though served CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The second appeal is challenging the order passed by the 1st Adhoc District Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 72 of 1996. 2] The appellants were original plaintiffs in the suit. They claim that certain portion of land (3) SA. 900.2008 survey no.615 of Ambajogai, has been in their possession since long time which they used as slaughter house, as well as mutton market. They alleged that the respondents were trying to encroach upon their slaughter house and market premises and so, sought permanent injunction against them. 3] The lower appellate Court however, held that the appellants neither proved their title to the suit premises nor could they prove their long standing possession and use. There is admittedly no document in the form of record of rights, showing the suit property being in occupation, possession etc. of the appellants. It is common ground that the land beneath the suit premises belong to the Municipal Council, Ambajogai. The entire record of rights shows this position very clearly. It was therefore, necessary for the appellants to show that they were occupying portion of land survey no.615 as licensee or tenant of the Municipal Council. All that the plaintiffs placed on record were certain receipts exhibit 43 to 51. The lower appellate Court observed that these receipts simply showed payments made by the plaintiffs to the Municipal Council for slaughtering animals etc. The receipts are not concerned to the suit premises. The appellants thus failed to prove their long standing possession. The lower appellate Court therefore, dismissed their suit. (4) SA. 900.2008 4] There is nothing illegal or perverse in the judgment of the lower Court. In fact, the trial Court had clearly erred in holding that the plaintiffs were occupying, using and are in possession of the suit premises. This finding is grossly erroneous in view of the Commissioner's report. The trial Court thus erred in believing the oral testimonies of the appellants' witnesses, who said assertively that they had seen the appellants using the suit premises, as slaughter house etc. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/20july9/SA900.08