( 1 ) 974 sa 432.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 974 SECOND APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9626 OF 2026 ATMARAM SHANKAR GHANGAON VERSUS NAMDEO PANDURANG DANDGE ….. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Ravi Raosaheb Bangar & Amol Ram Joshi ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 27.08.2026 Per Court:- 1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2021, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 2012 came to be challenged. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant took this Court through the pleadings, evidence on record, grounds raised in the appeal, and the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. He submitted that the plaintiff, Krishna Pandharinath Dandge, had no authority to institute the suit on behalf of Namdeo Pandurang Dandge. He further submitted that it was not proved that Namdeo Pandurang Dandge was mentally ill or legally incapable of managing 2026:BHC-AUG:39047 ( 2 ) 974 sa 432.26 his affairs. He pointed out that the Courts below held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and restrained the defendant from causing obstruction to their peaceful possession thereof. 3. Upon perusal of both the judgments, and particularly the stand taken by the defendant in paragraph 2 of the written statement, it appears that the defendant himself admitted that Krishna Pandharinath Dandge, who had instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, had permitted the defendant to cultivate the suit land and that a consent deed had been executed in that regard. The defendant further contended that he had not fabricated any document and that the names of the defendant were recorded by the Talathi and the Tahsildar in the cultivation column. The defendant did not dispute the title of the plaintiffs; rather, he disputed their possession and relied upon the alleged consent deed. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgments and the written statement, it is evident that the defendant has taken an evasive defence based upon the alleged consent deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff, who, according to the defendant, was suffering from mental illness. There is a clear and categorical finding recorded by both the Courts below against the defendant in that regard. ( 3 ) 974 sa 432.26 5. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine. 6. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Civil Application No. 9626 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] mubashir