1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APEAL FROM ORDER NO.197 OF 2011 RATAN THAMAJI KELODE AND ORS VERSUS ANANDA MHATARJI KELODE AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioners : Deshpande Jagdish V ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Grant of Exhibit-5 in RCS No. 67/2011, confirmation thereof in Misc. Civil Appeal No.193/2011, by order dated 14.10.2011, is questioned in this AO. 2) No notice. 3) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits the substantial question would be : whether based on mere revenue entries, an injunction can be clamped against the appellants. 4) Both the Courts have, on analysis of prima facie material, found the respondent, as plaintiff, to be in possession of Gut no.810 since long and to support such possession as owner, there was a statement made by the parties concerned (predecessor of the appellants) and in the consolidation scheme flowing since 1977, 2 uninterruptedly entries of ownership with possession are flowing in the name of the respondents. There is no overt act to demonstrate that the appellants are in possession with the respondents. The contention, that other properties between the branches are sold jointly, have been expressly dealt with by both the courts. The details of consolidation scheme are also discussed by the learned Additional District Judge. 5) Survey of above facts illustrate the injunction granted by the trial court, confirmed by the appellate court, does not call for interference. The substantial question of law posed by the appellants, indeed, needs to be answered against them as it is not mere revenue entries, but the consolidation scheme drawn in 1977, the statement made by predecessors of the appellants and the execution of sale-deeds by the branch of the appellants, are sufficient to negate the substantial question. 6) The Appeal from Order lacks merit dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/