1 11-sa-862-2016.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11 SECOND APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2016 1. Chandrabhan s/o Bapu Sangale, Age:65 years, Occ: Agril, 2. Malhari s/o Chandrabhan Sangale Age:39 years, Occ: Agril, 3. Shobhabai Malhari Sangale Age:35 years, Occ: Agril, All R/o. Malaxami Hivre, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Appellants (original defendant Nos.3 to 5) VERSUS 1. Sunita Dadaba Sangale Age: 40 years, Oce: Agri, 2. Vanita Dadaba Sangale Age: 20 years, Oce: Agri, 3. Sandeep s/o Dadaba Sangale Age: 17 years, Oce: Education, 4. Kisan s/o Dadaba Sangale Age: 15 years, Occ: Education, No.3 to 4 minors through legal Guardian mother i.e. resp. no. 1 5. Babasaheb s/o Sakharam Sangale Age: 50 years, Oce: Agri & service, 6. Rambhaji s/o Sakharam Sangale Age: 51 years, Oce: Agri, 7. Murlidhar s/o Vishwanath Avhad Age: 67 yrs., Oce: Agri, 8. Bolhaji s/o Narayan Sanap Age: 69 years, Occ: Agri, 2025:BHC-AUG:10627 2 11-sa-862-2016.odt 9. Gangadhar s/o Ganpat Ranbaware, Age: 38 years, occ: Agri, 10. Ashok s/o Ganpat Ranbaware Age: 43 years, occu: Agri, 11. Shivaji s/o Ganpat Ranbaware, Age: 37 years, occ: Agri, 12. Annasaheb s/o Bolhaji Sanap Age: 40 years, occ: Agri, 13. Bhagwan s/o Bolhaji Sanap Age: 31 years, occ: Agri, 14. Vitthal s/o Kondiba Ranbaware, Age: 48 years, occ: Agri, 15. Gorakshnath s/o Kondiba Ranbaware, Age:41 years, Occ: Agri, 16. Ambadas s/o Ramdas Ranbaware, Age: 37 years, occ: Agri, 17. Sambhaji s/o Ananda More, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agri, 18. Rangnath s/o Ananda More, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agri, 19. Annasaheb s/o Babasaheb More, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri, 20. Sangita Raosaheb More, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri, 21. Vitthal s/o Khanderao Borude, Age:52 years, Occ: Agri, 22. Ramchandra s/o Pandharinath Kekan Age: 68 years, Occ: Agri, 23. Dattu s/o Pandharinath Kekan Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri, 24. Uddhav s/o Sahebrao Kekan 3 11-sa-862-2016.odt Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri, 25. Vishnu s/o Sahebrao Kekan Age: 47 years, Occ: Agri, Resp.No.1 to 25 R/o. Mahalaxmi Hivre, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents. (Resp.. No.1 to 4 are orig. plaintiffs, & Resp. No.5 to 25 are orig. Defts. No.1, 2, 6 to 25) ... Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellants Mr. P. S. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT.: 1. The present appeal is filed by original defendant nos.3 to 5. The plaintiffs who are respondent nos.1 to 4 had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants claiming to be owners of the suit properties which are as under:- i. 1 H 4 R out of Gut No. 54 admeasuring 4 H 41 R. ii. 0.48 R out of Gut No.56 admeasuring 1 H 34 R situated at Village Mahalaxmi Hivre, Tal: Newasa Dist: Ahmednagar 2. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession on the basis of a partition. Apart from the prayer for perpetual injunction that their possession should not be disturbed, the plaintiffs sought a decree for measurement of the suit property on the ground that the adjoining owners who are the defendants were not giving consent for measurement of the property from the office of Taluka Inspector of Rand Records. 4 11-sa-862-2016.odt 3. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit granting decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and has also directed the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Newasa to carry out measurement of the suit property. 4. Perusal of the judgments of the learned Trial Courts will indicate that the learned Trial Court has referred to specific admissions by the contesting defendants regarding ownership and separate possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The said findings are confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court has also referred to the admissions to hold that although the appellants/original defendants had no interest in the suit property owned by the original plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 4, yet they were creating unnecessary complications in the matter of measurement of the suit property. 5. Having perused the judgments passed by the learned Courts with the able assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant, I find that pure findings of fact have been recorded by both the learned Courts by proper appreciation of evidence. The appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 6. Second Appeal is dismissed. 7. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Narwade/