The court held that possession, as reflected in revenue entries, substantiates the granting of an injunction against the defendant, alongside emphasizing the absence of substantial questions of law for appeal.

“ORDER

1. The suit is decreed with costs.

2. The defendant, his agents, servants, relatives or any person on his behalf are hereby permanently restrained from causing obstruction or interference to the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property without due process of law.

3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.

(Pronounced in open court)”

2. The first appellate court has confirmed the decree of injunction passed by the trial court.

3. It is not disputed that the respondents-plaintiffs are owners of the suit property. What is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement for sale in favour of one Asaram Dagadu Patil and pursuant to the agreement for sale, Asaram Dagadu Patil is in possession of the suit land. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that wife of the appellant is daughter of this Asaram Dagadu Patil, and hence pursuant to the agreement of sale, Asaram was in possession and after death of Asaram, the heirs and legal representatives of Asaram are in possession of the suit property. Hence, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, there could not have been any injunction passed against the present appellant and in favour of the plaintiffs.

4. It is further submitted that there was an application made during the pendency of the appeal at Exhibit-26 under Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby making an allegation that there was breach of the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. Copy of order dated 23rd August, 2022 passed by the District Court below Exhibit-26 in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2020 is annexed to the civil application and is relied upon by the appellant. On the basis of the findings recorded in paragraph no.8 of the said order, it is submitted that the appeal court had already come to the conclusion that as per the revenue entries, the name of the wife of the appellant was in cultivation column of the suit field after conducting enquiry and hence the wife of the appellant had instituted the revenue proceedings on the strength of the agreement of sale dated 25th August, 1983 and hence the restraining order operating against the present appellant would not be an obstacle in the way of his wife. Thus, it was submitted that the appellate court had already come to the conclusion in the said order that wife of the present appellant is in possession of the suit field, and therefore, there could not have been any injunction passed in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that they are in possession of the suit field.

5. It is further sought to be argued that evidence of plaintiff no.2 showed that plaintiff no.2 was not cultivating the suit field. It is submitted that the case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.2 was cultivating the suit field, however, plaintiff no.2 have admitted that he is not cultivating the suit field. Plaintiff no.1 was not examined in support of the contention that plaintiff no.1 was cultivating the suit field. Further the observation and finding of the first appellate court was relied upon wherein the revenue entries are referred to. It is thus submitted that only on the basis of the revenue entries, the injunction which is passed in favour of the plaintiffs can not be sustained as there is no specific findings recorded that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit field. It is further submitted that on the basis of the injunction which is passed against the appellant, the possession of his wife and other relatives are sought to be disturb