JUDGMENT - S.D. PANDIT, J.:---Shri Krishna Kesu Pawar, the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 1974 on the file of the Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Karad, has come in Second Appeal before this Court. 2. The suit property consists of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 13 Hissa No. 2 and Survey No. 14 Hissa No. 1 which is converted into Gut Nos. 32 and 34 of village Chargaon. The suit property was the Patil Vatan Lands. The suit property was belonging to one Raju Mane. He had no male heir but he left behind him his widow Ambubai Raju Mane and daughter Gojabai w/o Rama Pawar. The land in question was gifted by Ambubai Raju Mane in favour of her daughter Gojabai Rama Pawar on 6th December, 1886 and the said Gojabai Rama Pawar had two sons i.e. Kesu and Bali. Kesu is the father of the present appellant Krishna Kesu Pawar. Bali died without any heir. The plaintiffs case is that the said land was continued in occupation and possession of his great grand father Raju Mane. After the death of Raju Mane, it was possessed by his great grand mother Ambubai Raju Mane and thereafter it came in possession of the grand mother Gojabai Rama Pawar and after Gojabai Rama Pawar, it came into possession of the plaintiffs father and then came into possession of the present appellant-original plaintiff Krishna Kesu Pawar. On 10th September, 1937 the Revenue Officer held that the gift deed in favour of Gojabai is illegal. He held that Kesu son of the Gojabai to remain in possession of the said land on payment of "Kamal Rent". Thereafter, Maharashtra Revenue Patils (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 came into force on 4th September, 1962. After the said Act came into force, it seems by an Order dated 26th January, 1971 the said land was regranted by Tahsildar, Karad to the respondent No. 7 on payment of occupancy price. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the suit to get a decree of perpetual injunction. 3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement at Exhibit 23. They have contended that the plaintiff was not at all in possession of the land in question and that too they are not in possession and occupation even after the regrant of the said lands. 3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement at Exhibit 23. They have contended that the plaintiff was not at all in possession of the land in question and that too they are not in possession and occupation even after the regrant of the said lands. Therefore, the defendants have sought dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. 4. On rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has settled issues at Exhibit 28, and recorded the evidence for both sides. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the said land and though there was an order of regrant in favour of respondent No. 7, the respondent No. 7 was not in possession of the land, and the trial Court, therefore, passed an order in favour of the plaintiff by granting him a decree for perpetual injunction as well as consequential reliefs of getting price of trees which were sold out during the pendency of the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the original defendant had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1982 in the District Court, Satara at Satara. By judgment and order dated 31st December, 1984, the appellate Court has held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction as he was not entitled to remain in possession of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff has come in Second Appeal before this Court. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, it seems that the present appellant had taken up the proceedings before the Additional Collector, Satara bearing No. WTN/A/1/1986 to challenge the order passed in favour of the defendants and it seems that the said appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 21st February, 1994. The appellant has produced the certified copy of the said order dated 21st February, 1994 and other documents alongwith Civil Application being Civil Application No. 4832 of 1994 which is ordered to be heard alongwith this appeal. 7. There is no dispute of the fact that by an order dated 10th September, 1937, the plaintiffs father Kesu was allowed to occupy and possess the land in question by payment of Kamal Rent. 7. There is no dispute of the fact that by an order dated 10th September, 1937, the plaintiffs father Kesu was allowed to occupy and possess the land in question by payment of Kamal Rent. It is an admitted fact that after passing of the said order, neither Kesu nor the appellant-original plaintiff Krishna Kesu Pawar are dispossessed by the descendants of Raju Mane by due process of law. Therefore, when it is admitted fact that the plaintiff was in occupation and possession of the property in question on the date of the suit, he was entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction till he is evicted by due process of law. It must be remembered here that the claim of the plaintiff to possess the property could not be said to be a claim made by a rank tresspasser. He is all along contending that he is entitled to get ownership of the land in question under the provisions of section 9 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patils (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962. Therefore, in the circumstances, he was entitled to protect his possession till he was dispossessed by due process of law. 8. No doubt, the appellant had preferred the appeal against the order of regrant passed in favour of the respondent No. 7 by the Tahsildar, Karad. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector and he set aside the order of regrant dated 26th January, 1971 passed by the Tahsildar, Karad, in favour of original defendant No. 7. It must be remembered that the appellant had challenged the order of regrant after nearly 13 years. Therefore, in the circumstances, there is likelyhood that the appellant may take up the matter in Superior Court, and therefore, in circumstances, without making any observation regarding the said order in favour of the appellant. I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction till he is duly evicted from the suit property by due process of law 9. Thus, I held that the present appeal will have to be allowed,The judgement and dcree passed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1982 is set aside and in its place the following decree is passed. Thus, I held that the present appeal will have to be allowed,The judgement and dcree passed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1982 is set aside and in its place the following decree is passed. "The defendants are hereby restrained by perpetual injunction from disturbing the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law. The plaintiff is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 816.67 ps. whereas the defendants are entitled to get the amount of Rs, 408.33 ps. out of the sale proceeds lying in the trial Court." Both parties to bear their respective costs throughout. Appeal allowed. *****