VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of original plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.230 of 1982 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff along with original defendant No.2, who was later on deleted by order dated 22-08-1989, had come with a case that, they are the owners of portion of land Survey No.16/E/5 and Survey No.22/E/6 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and 10.06 Gunthas respectively situated at village Karchundi Tq. Dist. Beed. It is stated that, they are the joint owners and possessors of the suit land shown in the map appended to the land in Red colour. It was their ancestral property. They are in actual possession and cultivation of the same since their forefathers. Their names have been recorded in the revenue record. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the real brothers inter se. They have no right, title and interest over the suit lands. However, in collusion with each other, they are interested in denying the ownership of the plaintiffs as well as disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. By way of amendment, defendant No.3 was added to the suit and it was pleaded that, defendant No.3 has no right, title or interest over the suit land. He ascertained his title and possession over the suit land on 22-07-1988, and therefore, cause of action arose against him also. Plaintiffs therefore prayed for declaration and perpetual injunction.

3. Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed written statement at Exhibit 23; whereas defendant No.3 has filed written statement at Exhibit 80. They all have denied the contents of the plaint. It has been stated that the description of the suit property is wrong. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land as shown in the map appended to the plaint. It is stated that, the names of the plaintiffs are entered in the 7/12 extract but they are not in actual possession. It is stated that, plaintiffs are in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in both the suit properties. One Harinarayan was the original owner of Survey No.16 and 22. After his death, his two sons Bhujanga and Lahanu became owners. Bhujanga was survived by his sons Shrirang and Hari. Lahanu had two sons, they are defendants No.1 and 2. It is stated that, Bhujanga had given 1/4th share from both the survey numbers to one Babaji Kengre. After death of Babaji Kengre, the said share was given to the father of the plaintiffs for cultivation. It is stated that, plaintiff No.2 and his sons went to the land of the defendants which is in their possession and tried to take possession on 11-06-1982. It is stated that, defendants No.1 and 2 together have half share in Survey No.16 and 22, whereas defendant No.3 is having rest of the half share. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has held that, plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit land, however they are in possession of the property to the extent that is shown in the map with Red colour, and therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get injunction as prayed.

5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, both the parties i.e. plaintiffs as well as defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.05 of 1993 and Regular Civil Appeal No.270 of 1992 respectively before District Court, Beed. Both the appeals were heard by learned District Judge, Beed. Both the appeals came to be dismissed on 27-11-2003. Hence, now the legal representatives of original plaintiff No.1 have filed present second appeal to the extent of the refusal of the decree by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. It will not be out of place to mention here that, original defendants have not filed any appeal challenging the Judgment and decree passed