1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.446 OF 2006 Bashuddin Abalal Mulani .... Appellant Vs. Mehmood Budhan Mulani & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Y.M. Inamdar i/by Mr.P.M. Pradhan, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st July, 2009 P.C. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 12th January 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.380 of 1993 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22nd July 1993 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj in Regular Civil Suit No.309 of 1985. By the suit, the appellant sought perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from using the grave yard and the mosque. The appellant claims that he has been performing prayers and giving services at the grave yard and mosque since long. He has also been installing Moharam panjas during Moharam festival. It is alleged that respondents were obstructing the appellant from installing the panjas. Respondents filed their written statement opposing the claim of the appellant. It is alleged in the written statement that respondents have been looking after the management of mosque, grave yard since long time and that the appellant has no concern 2 with the property. They have also claimed that Moharam panjas are not installed in the mosque except during Moharam period. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court partly decreed the suit granting perpetual injunction in favour of the appellant restraining respondents from interfering with the appellant performing prayer in the mosque and grave yard and installing Moharam panjas only in the month of Moharam in the premises. The appellant preferred an appeal from the decree contending that the partial decree in the suit is not correct and the trial Court had lost sight of the evidence that the appellant had been exclusively performing all the rituals including maintenance of Turbat of Darga. The appellate court after considering the record and evidence dismissed the appeal upholding the factual findings of the trial Court as regards performance of several duties in the mosque and grave yard and passed the impugned order. 3. It is submitted that the trial Court was not right in limiting the installation of Moharum panjas for the Moharum period. According to the appellant, he has been installing Moharum panjas through out the year. Perusal of the evidence of the appellant shows that his claim is not supported by the evidence. The evidence categorically states that the installation of panjas was only during the Moharam period. Thus the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below is based on the evidence 3 before the court and a probable inference therefrom. Hence it cannot be disturbed. There is no question of law arising in the proceedings. Therefore, the Second Appeal No.446 of 2006 is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)