1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2007 Keshav s/o Vishwanath Shinde .. APPELLANT VERSUS Pandurang s/o Deorao Shinde & others .. RESPONDENTS Mrs. M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Temkar, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5 th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit in the year 1978 claiming possession of the property which is an open plot on which certain construction is alleged to have been raised. Plaintiff has claimed recovery of possession of the 2 property on the strength of his title. Although initially the suit was presented claiming perpetual injunction, however, by virtue of amendment made during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff requested for recovery of possession of the property. Defendants contend that they are in possession of the property on the basis of agreement to sell alleged to have been executed in their favour by one Manikchand. Defendants, however, have failed to prove the agreement to sell. At the same time, defendants have raised plea that they are in possession of the property on the basis of lease created in their favour by the original owner. However, defendants have failed to establish the alleged lease agreement. Defendants at the same time, have also raised plea to the effect that they are in possession of the property since last more than 12 years as owner and as such they have perfected their title. However, defendants have failed to establish the plea raised by them in respect of perfection of their title. The courts below therefore recorded finding to the effect that defendants have failed to establish their entitlement in respect of the suit property. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the courts below have recorded finding in favour of plaintiffs and granted decree in their favour. Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below need not be interfered with in exercise of powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for 3 consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa62.07.odt