SHRI. BALU PATING MORE AND ORS.versusSHRI. MANIK SHANKAR MORE AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:18381

                                                                   10-SA-818-2016.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2016
   Swapnil
               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
                                                  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