appellants. The record indicates that 32M Certificate as regards the land in question was issued in the name of Mr.Budha i.e. father of the present respondent. It appears that the mutation entry was effected in the name of Khanderao, father of the appellant no.1 as Manager of Karta. Merely because the mutation entry is made showing a person as Manager of HUF, that by itself would not make him Manager. The facts and circumstances in a particular case will only go to show that as per record he is acting as a Manager. After Khanderao was shown as Manager of HUF in regard to the land in question, subsequent mutation entries if perused indicate that the said claim of Khanderao cannot stand. If this is the factual position, then the contention of the present appellants that the property in question is an ancestral property will not sustain and therefore the claim of the present appellants that they were entitled to injunction could not have been granted. Both the courts have appreciated the provisions of law as well as the evidence on record in its proper perspective and have delivered judgments which do not require interference in this second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved.
