1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2002 which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-2 Ambajogai and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.248 of 1994 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, District Beed. The suit filed by the appellant/original plaintiff is dismissed by the trial Court and the first appellate court has confirmed this decision. Both the sides are heard for admission purpose.

2) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that land Gut No.332 situated at Kekat Sarni, Tahsil Kaij, is in his possession. It is contended that the land is Devastan land belonging to Dattatraya Devasthan Ambajogai and one Yashwant Goswami was Inamdar of this land. It is contended that Yashwant had given the land to the plaintiff and his father for cultivation prior to 1950 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of this land. It is contended that on 3-6-1992 written document of lease / Batai Patra was given to him by the successor of Yashwant viz. Sarvadnya and accordingly the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record in crops cultivation. He has given particulars of the crops taken by him in the field. It is contended that the defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit property. He has prayed for relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

3) The defendants filed joint written statement. They have admitted that land belongs to Dattatraya Sansthan of Ambajogai. They have admitted that Yashwant was Inamdar of the land and for rendering service to Devasthan the land was given. However, they have denied that the land was given by Yashwant to plaintiff or father of the plaintiff for cultivation purpose.

4) It is the case of the defendants that they are sons of deceased Yashwant, Inamdar, and after the death of Yashwant they and Sarvadnya have become Inamdar of the land. It is contended that the land was with joint family consisting of the defendants and Sarvadnya and they are jointly rendering service to the deity and there was joint possession and enjoyment of the land.

5) It is the case of the defendants that they had dispute with Sarvadnya, step brother of the defendants, in respect of the property left behind by Yashwant. It is contended that with ill-intention and to cause loss to the defendants, Sarvadnya has joined hands with the plaintiff and some false record is created. It is contended that revenue record was made in favour of the plaintiff by Sarvadnya and plaintiff in collusion with each other and they are not the correct entries.

6) Issues were framed with regard to claim of the plaintiff of possession and his entitlement to cultivate the land. In the trial Court both sides examined some witnesses. Sarvadnya, brother of the defendants, gave evidence in support of the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that the land was with the joint family of the defendants and Sarvadnya and there was joint possession and enjoyment and as per the personal law with regard to Hindu Joint Family, no relief of injunction can be given to the plaintiff. The trial Court has refused to hold that so called Batai Patra can be read in evidence much less in support of the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court has referred to some provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952 and in view of provisions of the said Act, the relief is refused. On the question of fact of possession and aforesaid circumstances the finding of the Appellate Court is concurrent.

7) In this appeal the appellant has framed some substantial questions of law which are with regard to the evidentiary value of the Batai Patra which is not registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. The question of grant or refusal of injunction if settled possession is shown is framed as question of fact and