1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2007 Daji Vishram Udeg & ors........Appellants versus Vishwanath Shembekar & anr......... Respondents. Ms. Deepti Wadkar adv. for the Appellants Mr. Sanskar Marathe i/b Deven Dwarkadas & partner adv. for the respondent no.1 CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 12th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Deepti Wadkar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Marathe for the respondent no.1. 2. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. Suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for injunction simplicitor against the appellants/defendants. The trial court decreed the suit. The present appellant's appeal before the lower appellate court also dismissed, thereby confirmed the decree of the trial court. Both the lower courts below recorded the finding of fact that the respondent no.1 original plaintiff along with his brother i.e. Respondent no.2/original defendant no.3 is the owner and in possession of the suit land. Ms. Wadkar submitted that the finding of possession recorded by both the lower courts below in 2 favour of the respondent is perverse, as name of predecessor in title of the defendant was shown as a tenant in the suit property. I find in the submission as deceased Dhondu infact made a statement in a tenancy proceeding that he is neither a tenant nor is in possession of the suit land. Apart from this the 7/12 extract of the suit property since 1980-81 continuously shows the name of the respondent/plaintiff in cultivation as well as ownership column. In that view of the matter the finding of possession in favour of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)