ORDER

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, originally made on March 23, 1995 in Order No. 40/95 and in MCA No. 656/95 on June 30, 1995.

3. The facts are fairly not in dispute. The admitted position is that the appellant and the respondent had jointly purchased the suit scheduled property. It would appear that there was a partition between them as co-owners on March 20. 1982. Subsequently, it would appear that mutation was effected in the revenue record on July 21, 1982 to the extent of the property that had fallen to the share of the appellant who claims to have a further effected partition between the appellant and his children on July 24, 1986. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act which was dismissed by the appellate Court on March 9, 1994. Without availing of the further right of revision as provided thereunder, he filed the civil suit in the Court seeking declaration of his title to the property and perpetual injunction. Initially, the trial Court refused to grant injunction. But, on appeal, the District J