Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/6/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadchiroli in Special Civil Suit No.34/2003 came to be dismissed. 3. The appellants filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for injunction and in the alternative for refund of earnest money that was claimed to have been paid by them to the respondent. The plaint came to be rejected by order dated 9/2/2005 and as such the suit of the appellants did not survive. The counter claim filed by the respondent was as such taken up for consideration. The counter claim was for a mandatory injunction to remove the shed which was raised by the appellants and also for a perpetual injunction retraining the appellants not to disturb the lawful possession of the respondent over the suit property. 4. It is the case of the respondent that the land bearing Kh. No.6, situated at village Allapali, admeasuring 1152 Sq. Ft. was granted to him by the Government as per the deed dated 16th June 1989. Since then the respondent is in possession of the suit property. The respondent intended to raise a construction in the said property and as such had started putting up such construction which was raised up to the plinth level. Thereafter, due to paucity of funds the construction could not be completed. The respondent was residing at Aheri till 1996 and thereafter shifted to Chandrapur on account of his business activities. It is further his case that after 1996, the respondent used to visit the suit property regularly and on 8/11/2003 when the respondent visited the suit plot he noticed two fabricated iron structures placed on the said plinth. On enquiry, the respondent learnt that the said structure was kept thereon by the appellant no.1. It is further his contention that he immediately lodged a report to the police station against the appellant no.1 and the police officers orally directed her to stop her illegal activities. On enquiry, the respondent learnt that the said structure was kept thereon by the appellant no.1. It is further his contention that he immediately lodged a report to the police station against the appellant no.1 and the police officers orally directed her to stop her illegal activities. It is further his contention that the appellants had filed a false suit against him as according to him there was no agreement of any kind entered into between the respondent and the husband of the appellant no.1 with regard to the said property. It is further his case that the illegal structure kept by the appellants was lying in the suit plot and considering that the appellants' were intending to disturb the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot, the counter claim was filed for a the decree of mandatory injunction to remove the said structure kept by the appellant no.1 in the suit plot as well for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot. 5. The appellants have filed their written statement to the said counter claim. It is the case of the appellants that the said plinth level construction in the suit plot was erected by the husband of the appellant no.1. It is further their contention that the suit plot was in possession of the appellants and accordingly the two structures were constructed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants contended that the respondent is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the counter claim. 6. The learned trial Judge after framing the issues and recording the evidence decreed the counter claim filed by the respondent thereby directed by way of mandatory injunction the appellants to remove the two iron structures kept by the appellant no.1 in the suit plot bearing Kh. No.66 situated at village Allapali and granted the permanent injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot. 7. While dealing with the issues framed in the suit; the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants had illegally erected an iron shed on the suit property owned and possessed by the respondent and on the basis of Exh.38 came to the conclusion that the suit plot belong to the respondent. 7. While dealing with the issues framed in the suit; the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants had illegally erected an iron shed on the suit property owned and possessed by the respondent and on the basis of Exh.38 came to the conclusion that the suit plot belong to the respondent. The learned Judge on the basis of the 7/12 extract which was at Exh.73 found that the suit plot stood in the name of the respondent. The learned Judge has appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellants and held that though the appellants had contended that they were in possession of the suit plot which is disputed by the respondent, nevertheless, the appellant no.1 in her cross examination had claimed that the thelas or iron structure were kept over the plinth existing in the suit plot. The contention of the appellant no.1 that her husband had put up the construction up to the plinth area has been to be rejected and the learned trial Judge has held that said construction up to the plinth area was owned and carried out by the respondent. The learned Judge further held that the document which was sought to be relied by the respondent which was at Exh.108 could not be treated as entries made in the revenue record as the same were merely a report made by the Talathi in view of an inspection which had taken place after the proceedings were initiated in the Court. The learned Judge further held that as there was some overwriting on the Exh.110 it should not be relied upon and that Exh.110 discloses the name of shop Bharat Medical Stores which fact was not even deposed by the appellant no.1 nor were there any pleadings to that effect in the written statement of the appellants. As such the learned trial Judge disbelieved the case of the appellants that they were in possession of the suit plot and as such decreed the counter claim and inter-alia directed the appellants to remove the iron structure from the suit property. 8. The appellants being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009. By judgment dated 30th October 2009 the appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. 8. The appellants being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009. By judgment dated 30th October 2009 the appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. The learned District Judge after re-appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that no agreement for sale was produced by the appellants nor any evidence was adduced to establish any right to the appellants to put up the said iron structure and as such there was no justification to allow any unauthorized structure to continue in the suit plot. The learned District Judge rejected the contention of the appellants with regard to the dispute in respect of the title over the suit plot in view of the material produced by the respondent on record. The learned District Judge rejected the report of the Talathi relied upon the by appellants on the ground that the Talathi in his deposition has categorically stated that he personally does not know anything about the matter. The learned District Judge on the basis of document produced at Exh.71 by the respondent came to the conclusion that the title of the respondent over the suit plot had been established. The learned District Judge on perusal of the document at Exh.73 which is 7/12 extract found that the name of the respondent was figuring therein. On the basis of documentary evidence on record adduced by the respondent, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had title and possession over the suit property. The learned District Judge further held that merely keeping an iron structure in the suit plot would not amount to dispossession of the respondent over the suit property and as such there was no requirement on the part of the respondent to seek for restoration of possession. As such the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgments passed by the Courts below, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Courts below were not justified to pass the impugned judgments as according to him the appellants were in possession of the suit property and there was no prayer for restoration of possession. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Courts below were not justified to pass the impugned judgments as according to him the appellants were in possession of the suit property and there was no prayer for restoration of possession. The learned counsel further submitted that by keeping the iron structure in the suit plot it can be inferred that the possession of the suit plot was with the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that thought the appellants might not be in a possession of the total area of suit property, nevertheless, the appellants were in possession of the portion where the said iron structure has been installed. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no justification for the Courts below in rejecting the spot inspection report prepared by the Talathi which according to the learned counsel establishes that the possession of the suit plot was with the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that as there was no prayer for restoration of possession, the question of any mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent does not arise at all. The learned counsel further submitted that there are perverse findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below to the effect that that the respondent was in possession of the suit property. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgments passed by the Courts below. It is his submission that the spot inspection report at Exh.100 cannot be relied upon as in any case such document is not a record of right within the provisions of M.L.R. Code. The record of rights are 7/12 extract which discloses that the same stands in the name of the respondent and name of the appellants does not figure therein. The learned counsel further submitted that said document at Exh.100 has not been duly proved as the Talathi who was examined has stated that he is not aware about the contents therein. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event the said document does not support the case of the appellants and as such said document which has been prepared during the pendency of the suit discloses material which is not found pleaded nor deposed by the appellant no.1 in her deposition. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event the said document does not support the case of the appellants and as such said document which has been prepared during the pendency of the suit discloses material which is not found pleaded nor deposed by the appellant no.1 in her deposition. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no prayer seeking restoration of possession of the suit plot as the possession continued with the respondent and as such there was no question of any dispossession as sought to be contended by the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the possession of the suit plot was with the respondent and this Court in a second appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to any contrary findings. The learned counsel further submitted that merely keeping an iron structure in the suit property can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be dispossession as it is merely a sporadic act of trespass which cannot be considered to be dispossession of the suit plot. The learned counsel further submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and as such the appeal deserves to be rejected. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that there can be no dispute that suit plot belongs the respondent. The title of the suit plot has been established on the basis of the documentary evidence at Exh.71 and 72 which has been relied upon by the Courts below to come to the conclusion that the title as well as the possession of the suit plot is of the respondent. It is not disputed that the 7/12 extracts at Exh.73 which are the record of right in respect of suit plot stands in the name of the respondent. The names of the appellants admittedly do not figure in such records. It is the well settled that revenue records create a presumption of possession in favour of the person in whose name they stand. Considering that the name of the respondent is recorded there, the possession of the respondent has to be accepted. The names of the appellants admittedly do not figure in such records. It is the well settled that revenue records create a presumption of possession in favour of the person in whose name they stand. Considering that the name of the respondent is recorded there, the possession of the respondent has to be accepted. Apart from that the Courts below on minute examination of the documents produced by the appellants came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to establish that the appellants were in possession of the suit plot. On the basis of evidence on record and on appreciating the oral evidence adduced by the parties, I find the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the possession of the suit plot was with the respondent. 12. In the judgment reported in 2001 (8) S.C.C. 584 (Mohan Lal Vs. Nihal Singh) the Apex Court has held that the question of possession of the suit property is essentially a question of fact. There is hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the findings of possession concurrently recorded by the Courts below within the limited parameters of the second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case the Courts below on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record specially the 7/12 extract came to the conclusion that the possession of the suit plot was with the respondent. This concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this court in a second appeal. 13. In 1999 (7) S.C.C. 303 Ram Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. Thawar Das (dead) through L.Rs.) the Apex court has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the lower Courts judgment is confined to only a substantial question of law otherwise interference with the findings is not warranted. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in exercising jurisdiction under provisions of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. As such considering that the findings of the Courts below are based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, there is no scope for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to any contrary finding. 14. As such considering that the findings of the Courts below are based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, there is no scope for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to any contrary finding. 14. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the spot inspection report establishes that the possession of the suit plot was with the appellants cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the said spot inspection report at Exh.100 was prepared during the pendency of the suit. The records are also said to be not complete. The learned trial Judge while considering the said report has rejected the said contention on the ground that the Talathi was examined and had stated that he does not know personally anything about the spot inspection report. The findings of the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be erroneous as the Talathi was unable to prove the report. 15. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel about the existence of the Bharat Medical Stores in the suit plot the learned trial Judge at para 25 discussed the said contention and held that the existence of such medical Stores was not even pleaded by the appellants in the written statement nor was this fact stated in the deposition of the appellant. Once there are no pleadings to that effect, evidence beyond the pleadings has no relevance. As such the Courts below were justified in rejecting the said contentions of the appellants. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that he is only in a possession of the area where the iron structure is existing. Admittedly, such area has not been identified by the appellants. The Courts below have concurrently held that the plinth level construction was erected by the respondent by rejecting the claim of the appellants that such construction was put up by the husband of the appellant no.1. Admittedly the said iron structure was kept over and above the existing plinth. It is not disputed that such iron structure is of a temporary nature. There is no evidence on record adduced by the appellants that at any point of time the appellants were occupying the said iron structure. Admittedly the said iron structure was kept over and above the existing plinth. It is not disputed that such iron structure is of a temporary nature. There is no evidence on record adduced by the appellants that at any point of time the appellants were occupying the said iron structure. Though its sought to be claimed by the learned counsel that some business activities were conducted in the said structure but however no evidence of any nature has been produced to establish the said contention. In case such activity was carried out, naturally there would have been evidence such as tax receipt, electricity consumption bill and so on showing that the appellants were in occupation of the such structure. As no such material has been adduced by the appellants it is obvious that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the iron structure was being used for business activities has no force. 17. To claim physical possession a person should be in such a position that he can deal with the property to the exclusion of others. In the present case no evidence has been adduced by the appellants to the effect that the appellants had occupied the said structure at any point of time. Both the Courts below have rejected the contention of the appellants to that effect. Merely a sporadic act on the part of the appellant no.1 of placing an iron structure in the suit plot can by no stretch of imagination be considered that the appellants are in possession of the suit plot. Said act being a mischievous act committed by a trespasser can be ordered to be removed by way of a mandatory injunction by the true owner to prevent the perpetuity of a wrong. 18. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel that the respondent ought to have filed a suit for restoration of possession, and the relief for mandatory injunction was not sufficient, I find considering the findings of the Courts below, the question of seeking of restoration of possession does not arise at all. The Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent is in possession of the suit plot. The Courts below had found that appellant no.1 had kept only an iron structure in the suit plot and the respondent is entitled to seek its removal by way of mandatory injunction. The Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent is in possession of the suit plot. The Courts below had found that appellant no.1 had kept only an iron structure in the suit plot and the respondent is entitled to seek its removal by way of mandatory injunction. On perusal of the written statement by the appellants there are no pleadings to disclose any act of continued possession by the appellants in the suit plot. There is no material to establish any continued occupation by the appellants of the said iron structure. It is an admitted fact that immediately after the respondent noticed that the appellant no.1 had kept the iron structure, the counter claim was filed seeking for mandatory injunction. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1980 Bombay 123 (Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli Vs. Haribhau Manibhai Patel) this Court has held at para 10 as under - "prayer (b) of the plaint, in the guise of a prayer for a mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove himself from the said flat, is in substance no other than a prayer for the recovery of possession of the said flat, Realizing full well that the proper relief to pray for would be a decree or order for possession but at the same time being desirous of bringing the suit in this Court and simultaneously not wishing the suit to suffer from a technical defect, the draftsman of the plaint has in the said prayer sought to protect the plaintiff by using the phraseology "that the defendant be ordered and decreed by a mandatory order or injunction..." Thus, really, what is prayed for is a decree for possession. " It is now well settled that when we haw to determine the nature of the suit what we are to look at is the real substance of the suit and not legal ingenuity in drafting the plaint. The plaint read as a whole and the real substance of the suit leave no doubt that this is a suit between persons who hold the character of a licensor and licensee, which relationship having come to an end according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has become entitled both in law and under the agreement of licence to recover possession of the property from the defendant, his licensee." In A.I.R. 1966 Bombay 113 (Miss. Aninha D'costs Vs. Mrs. Parvatibai M. Thakur) the Division Bench of this Court has held at para 2 as under - "....but in that case we also pointed out that the Court would be entitled to construe the plaint and if on a fair construction the Court could arrive at the conclusion that what was really intended by the plaint was a claim to possession, then the suit ought not to be dismissed only on the ground that court-fee had been paid as on an injunction. In view of this judgment, Naik J. construed the plaint and directed the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee which she would have been bound to pay as on a suit for possession on the basis of the value of the property as fixed by him......" Considering that the appellants failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit plot, the Courts below were justified to come to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the appellants to remove the iron structure from the suit plot as well as for a permanent injunction as prayed for and there was no need for seeking restoration of possession. In any event the said aspect has no relevance in view of the said judgment of this Court. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1993 S.C. 957 (Vinay Krishna Vs. Keshav Chandra and another), A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2685 (Ram Saran and another Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi), to support his submissions that the suit for injunction simplicitor does not lie in case the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit plot and without prayer for restoration of possession. The Apex Court in Vinay Krishna, cited supra, held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the house and as such was not entitled for a declaration in view of the proviso to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. In the case of Ram Saran and another, cited supra, the Apex Court held that when the defendant is in possession of the suit property, the plaintiff without seeking restoration of possession cannot seek for declaration of title. The said judgments are not applicable to the present case considering the concurrent findings of fact that the respondent was in possession of the suit plot and the claim of possession by the appellants being disbelieved. The said judgments are not applicable to the present case considering the concurrent findings of fact that the respondent was in possession of the suit plot and the claim of possession by the appellants being disbelieved. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence the appeal stands summarily dismissed.