:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.170 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2008 IN S.A.NO.170/2008 Mr. Chandulal T. Gaikwad. ..Appellant. Vs. Mrs. Vijaya R. Manchali. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Mali i/by N. Deepak & Co. for the Appellant. Mr.D.N.Salvi for the Respondent. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 17/4/2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a appeal filed by the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and order of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the appellate court. This is therefore, a case of concurrent finding of two courts. As regards the possession the court has observed that apart from the pencil entries for some years there is no document indicating plaintiff’s possession. In any case the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession is concurrent finding of fact. As regards the declaratory relief of ownership, it was the plaintiff’s case that his forefathers were the tenants. Both the courts have :2: observed that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that that the tenancy right was converted into ownership by a appropriate order under Section-32G. No document of title has been produced on behalf of the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, in my view, there is no substantial question of law. Hence, second appeal is rejected. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2008 1. As the Second Appeal is dismissed, civil application is also dismissed. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)