JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004, original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 71/1996 have preferred this Second Appeal.

3. The only ground, on which the impugned decree has been assailed, is the ground no.11 of the Appeal Memo, which reads as under :

"11. The Judgment and Order passed by the Ld. District Court is perverse to the record and therefore, is illegal, improper and is against the documents on record and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside."

3. Facts:

Suit property is Gat No.36. Plaintiffs sought, a declaration of their title and injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing and interfering their possession over the suit land. Respondents no. 13 and 14 (original defendants no. 13 and 14) had filed a counter-claim and asserted their right and share in the suit Gat No.36. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 2004 decreed the suit and rejected the counterclaim of the defendants no. 13 and 14. Aggrieved by the decree, the original defendants no.1 to 8 had preferred Regular Civil App