10-SA-818-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2016 Balu Pating More and Ors. … Appellants Vs. Manik Shankar More and Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1620 OF 2016 Mr. Nikhil Pujari i/b. Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for the appellants. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 10th APRIL 2026 ORDER : 1. This second appeal is filed by the original defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees granting an injunction to protect the plaintiffs’ possession and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim seeking an injunction to protect their possession. Both the courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession based on the sale deed executed by the father of defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff no.2. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession based on their title in view of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff no.2 as their joint family property. The defendants did not dispute the 1/4 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:18381 10-SA-818-2016.docx execution of the sale deed. Hence, their prayer in counterclaim to protect their possession is not granted, and the counterclaim is dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs’ father was in arrears of the land revenue. Hence, the land was forfeited, and the government's name was entered in the record of rights. Hence, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiffs’ father had no right title interest to execute the sale deed and transfer the title and possession in favour of plaintiff no.2. He, therefore, submits that the second appeal would raise substantial question of law on the point as to whether the plaintiffs could be entitled to seek injunction based on the sale deed executed by defendants’ father after the land was forfeited by the government. 3. I have perused the papers of the second appeal. The revenue record, entering the name of the State Government, is examined by both the courts. The execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff no.2 is not disputed. Hence, based on the averments in the sale deed that possession was handed over to the plaintiffs, both courts have accepted the 2/4 10-SA-818-2016.docx plaintiffs’ lawful possession of the suit property. In the partition suit filed inter se between the defendants, a compromise was arrived at. However, in the partition that took place amongst the defendants, the suit property was excluded. Hence, both the courts have disbelieved the defendants’ contentions that the possession was not handed over, and they continued to be in possession of the suit property. 4. So far as the entry of the government in the revenue record is concerned, both the courts have refused to consider it in holding that the plaintiffs were not put in possession pursuant to the sale deed. The sale deed is not under challenge. Though the defendants had filed the counterclaim, they have prayed only for an injunction to protect their possession. Thus, in the absence of any challenge to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs, the theory of possession is rightly accepted by both the courts in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. The issue of non-payment of land revenue and the defendants’ claim to title based on the non-payment of land revenue was not relevant, as there was no challenge to the 3/4 10-SA-818-2016.docx sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, the findings of fact recorded by both courts, accepting the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property based on the sale deed, call for no interference in this second appeal. There is also no evidence on record indicating that the plaintiffs were dispossessed due to the alleged non-payment of land revenue. Hence, in a suit for an injunction to protect possession under the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, both courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to protect their possession. The finding of facts on possession recorded by both the courts is based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The said finding of fact would not warrant any interference in this second appeal. 6. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application is disposed of as infructuous. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4