1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2010 Gulzar Khan Razak Khan ... Appellant v/s Nagesh Vithal Sawant & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.S.Karnik for the appellant. Mr.G.J.Sabnis for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 23RD APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. The second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that he had disputed the case of the plaintiff on the basis of “Lavanchitthi” dated 28.5.1952 by which he claimed that he was also a tenant of the suit property. Undisputedly, 2 a certificate under Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act was issued in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellate Court has not referred to the “Lavanchitthi” at all while confirming the decision of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has discarded this document since it found that the “Lavanchitthi” did not appear to be genuine. No grounds were raised in the appeal memo filed before the District Court regarding the “Lavanchitthi”. Therefore, the Appellate Court had not adverted to the “Lavanchitthi”. 4. In these circumstances, I see no reason to differ with the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below. 5. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the appeal. 6. The second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 3