1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.91/2011 Eaknath Ganpatrao Sawwalakhe ...Versus... Kisanrao Barkaji Tongase (Dead) through L.Rs. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri Rahul Tajne, Adv. for appellant] [Shri K.N. Dadhe, Adv. for respondent/caveator] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 15.03.2011. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a submission that the transaction in question was the money lending transaction and the money was already repaid by the appellant/defendant. Still the Court granted decree. According to him, the boundaries of the suit property were not shown correctly and that the possession was not given at the time of sale-deed are the circumstances which support the defence of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgments and argued that the findings are concurrent and therefore, this Court should not interfere. I have gone through the impugned judgments recoded by the Courts below and having heard 2 learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, the appellate Court has discussed the reasons for not accepting the submissions made before me. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded on this point by the Courts below and there is no reason to differ with those findings of facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge ssw