JUDGMENT : R.G.Ketkar , J. Heard Mr. S.P. Dound, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Mr.Amrata @ Amratlal s/o Laxman Bhurewale, respondent in person, at length. 2. By this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.), the original defendant has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 13th April, 1992 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 139/1985. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) and modified the operative part of the judgment and decree dated 24th July, 1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in Regular Civil Suit No.192/1984. The learned District Judge decreed the suit with costs and restrained the appellant (herein after referred as defendant) and its personnel from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and cultivation in the land bearing Survey No. 18, Gat No. 51 ad measuring 38 acres and 12 gunthas situated at village Deomurti, Tq. and District Jalna (for short, suit land), either by themselves or their agents, officers or staff members of Recruits. 3. The facts, giving rise for filing of the present Second Appeal, briefly stated are as follows, (a) The plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant and its Jawans from interfering into peaceful possession of plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff contended that he is owner of the suit land and is in possession thereof. There is a well in the southern portion in the suit land. There is a stream flowing north to south. The plaintiff has built the well on the southern side and by obtaining electric connection, he is using the water from the well. The defendant is obstructing the peaceful possession and cultivation of the plaintiff by holding parades for its recruits and is using some portion of land for training of firing. The defendant is also causing damage to his land. Though the plaintiff made requests to the defendant, the defendant is obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession in the suit land through its recruits. He, therefore, instituted the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant. (b) The defendant filed written statement, resisting the suit. It was inter alia, contended that the suit land originally belonged to the Government. It was allotted to one Samsher s/o Fazubhai for restricted purpose. He, therefore, instituted the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant. (b) The defendant filed written statement, resisting the suit. It was inter alia, contended that the suit land originally belonged to the Government. It was allotted to one Samsher s/o Fazubhai for restricted purpose. This land was allotted to Samsher, excluding 3 hectares and 75 R. for firing range. The said firing range is in the east-south corner of the suit land. The plaintiff is not exclusive owner of the suit land. Before transferring the suit land, Samsher was required to obtain Collector's permission. In view thereof, it was contended that since there was no permission, no valid title was passed on the plaintiff. The defendant contended that since the establishment of S.R.P.F. Gr.III at Jalna in the year 1956, the defendant is using 3 hectares and 75 R. land out of the suit land for its firing range. Prior to that the Army of the erstwhile Nizam State was enjoying the said area for firing purpose. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot claim to be exclusive owner of the entire land. It was further contended that by obstructing defendant's right to enjoy that portion of 3 hectares and 75 R land, the plaintiff is committing mischief. The plaintiff was, therefore, prosecuted, vide Crime Nos. 163/1983 and 77/1984 on 9th November, 1983 and 16th November, 1984 respectively. (c) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues. The plaintiff led his evidence and filed some documents. As against this, the defendant did not lead any oral evidence in the trial court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge partly decreed the suit and restrained the defendant from causing any sort of unhappy event or untoward act to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit land, barring the area used by the defendant as their Firing platforms, i.e. firing range and the access to the platforms. Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff preferred the appeal. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of the trial court. (d) As noted earlier, the learned District Judge decreed the suit and restrained the defendant and its personnel from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and cultivation in the suit land either by themselves or their agents, officers or staff members or recruits. (d) As noted earlier, the learned District Judge decreed the suit and restrained the defendant and its personnel from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and cultivation in the suit land either by themselves or their agents, officers or staff members or recruits. It is against this order, the original defendant has instituted the present Second Appeal. 4. The appeal was admitted on 21st July, 1992 as Grounds No.4, 6, 8 and 9 raise substantial questions of law. The said Grounds read as under, "(4) That, the learned lower appellate Court has failed to consider that the disputed land was given to one shamsher Fajubhai for restricted purposes; (6) That, the lower appellate court has failed to consider that said Shamsher had no title over the suit land; (8) The learned lower appellate court has failed to consider that the appellant is in possession since 1956 as their Jawans, Home Guards and Police go to that land for their practice of firing; (9) The lower appellate court has misread the evidence and thereby arrived at erroneours conclusion" 5. The defendant also filed Civil Application No. 2550/1992, praying for stay of the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge as also for injunction, restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the defendant's possession to the extent of 3 hectares and 75 R. By order dated 21st July, 1992, Rule was issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) was granted. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff took out Civil Application No.8482/2008 for vacating interim relief granted by this Court in C.A.No.2592/1992. The plaintiff has also filed Civil Application No.2253/2014 for dismissing the Second Appeal as also claiming damages. The defendant has filed CA No.5188/2014 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for production of additional evidence. 7. By separate order passed by me today, I did not find any merit in the application for production of additional evidence and accordingly, I have dismissed the said application. 8. In support of this appeal, Mr. Dound reiterated the submissions that were made before the Courts below. He submitted that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title as also possession over the suit land. The defendant is in settled possession of the suit land right from 1956. 8. In support of this appeal, Mr. Dound reiterated the submissions that were made before the Courts below. He submitted that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title as also possession over the suit land. The defendant is in settled possession of the suit land right from 1956. The learned Trial Judge has accepted that the defendant is in possession of the portion of suit land to the extent of 3 hectares and 75 R.As against this, the learned District Judge, without any material on record, interfered with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his possession over the entire suit land. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order thereby restoring the trial courts judgment. 9. As against this, the respondent in person supported the impugned order. He submitted that the defendant filed written statement. The defendant, however, did not lead any evidence. The defendant also did not plead and establish that it has acquired title by adverse possession. On the basis of the longstanding entries in the relevant revenue record, the learned District judge held that the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit land and defendant has no semblance of right, title and interest. The defendant was occasionally using some portion of the suit land. That by itself will not confer any title over the defendant as also will not establish their continuous settled possession. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. As noted earlier, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that he is in possession of the suit land and he is cultivating the suit land. The learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit and restrained the defendant from causing any sort of unhappy event or untoward act to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit land barring the area used by the defendant as their firing range (3 hectares and 75 R.) The defendant did not challenge this decree passed by the trial court. It is only the plaintiff, who preferred the appeal. It is only the plaintiff, who preferred the appeal. The learned District Judge noted that as against the claim of exclusive ownership of the entire suit land, the defendant came with a case that it is using 3 hectares and 75 R. land for the purpose of firing range, i.e. for the purpose of training of its recruits. Though the defendant came with the case that the suit land does not exclusively belong to the plaintiff and it was allotted to the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title Samsher for limited purpose with some restrictions, it did not lead any evidence in support of that contention. On the contrary, the plaintiff in his evidence categorically stated that the suit land belongs to him and it is in his possession as owner. In support of this, he has produced record of rights of the suit land for the period 1973-1974 and 1983-1984 at Exhibit-48. He also produced relevant revenue record for the years 1983-1986 at Exhibit-39. These extracts are in the name of plaintiff showing him to be an owner and in possession of the suit land as method of cultivation shown in the lower portion of the extract in vernacularly mentioned as "Reet No.1", which means that owner himself is cultivating the land. The other rights column also do not show rights of any other person or authority in the land. After considering the testimony of the plaintiff, which was not challenged in the cross-examination by the defendant, as also in view of Exhibits 38 and 39, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff has proved that the suit land exclusively belongs to him. The learned District Judge also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sir Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and Ors. AIR 1973 SC 1299 and observed that in the present case, longstanding entries in the relevant revenue record show ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge also noted that in the present case, there is no entry in favour of the defendant. The presumption in favour of the plaintiff is not rebutted by the defendant either by oral or documentary evidence. 11. The learned District Judge thereafter considered the case made out by the defendant that it is using 3 hectares and 75 R. land out of suit land for firing range. The presumption in favour of the plaintiff is not rebutted by the defendant either by oral or documentary evidence. 11. The learned District Judge thereafter considered the case made out by the defendant that it is using 3 hectares and 75 R. land out of suit land for firing range. The learned District Judge noted that the plaintiff specifically denied in his testimony that the defendant is using portion of suit land for firing purposes frequently or since 1975. He stated that during the period from 1972-1975, S.R.P. personnel used to come there occasionally for firing purpose. The learned District Judge, therefore, observed that occasional use of some portion of the suit land, does not confer any right, title or interest or even right of easement in favour of the defendant. The defendant also did not come with the case that it is owner of some portion of the suit land by adverse possession or that it has easementary rights in respect of some portion of the suit land. The defendant also did not take up plea of adverse possession. 12. As stated earlier, the appeal was admitted on Ground Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9. After hearing the learned AGP and the respondent in person and after perusing the material on record, I do not find that the appeal raises any substantial question of law. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge are perverse, being based upon no evidence or that on the basis of evidence on record, no reasonable or prudent person will come to that conclusion. Merely because another view is possible on the basis of evidence on record, that by itself does not make out a case for invoking powers under Section 100 of C.P.C. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and same is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the appellant, if so advised, to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the suit land by following due process of law. 14. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application Nos.2590/1992 and 8482/2014 do not survive and the same are disposed of. 15. In so far as Civil Application No. 2253/2014 is concerned, the plaintiff has prayed for vacating the interim relief and dismissal of the second appeal and claimed damages against the defendant. 14. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application Nos.2590/1992 and 8482/2014 do not survive and the same are disposed of. 15. In so far as Civil Application No. 2253/2014 is concerned, the plaintiff has prayed for vacating the interim relief and dismissal of the second appeal and claimed damages against the defendant. It is not possible to consider the prayer for damages for the first time, made by the plaintiff in this appeal. Reserving the liberty to the plaintiff to initiate appropriate proceedings, no relief can be granted in this civil application and the same is disposed of accordingly. If the plaintiff adopts any proceedings, the same shall be decided on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. Order accordingly.