1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1086 OF 2005 Babu s/o Jairam Kokane, age: 46 years, Occ: Hair Cutting Saloon, R/o Dhondrai, Tq.Georai, District Beed. Appellant Versus 1 Narayan s/o Kolu Kokane, age: 67 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Dhondrai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 2 Eknath s/o Narayan Kokane, age: 37 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Dhondrai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. Respondents Mr.B.A.Darak, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.J.Salunke, , advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 04th September, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff claims decree of perpetual injunction in respect of open space which he claims to be part of Gram Panchayat House No. 2 495. 3 Defendants – Respondents have controverted claim of the plaintiff contending that disputed portion is not part of house no.495, but is part of house no.493, which belongs to defendants. 4 The trial Court, after considering evidence documentary as well as oral, came to the conclusion that plaintiff has not established his claim, as such, dismissed the suit. 5 The first appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties, has concurred with the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by Shri Darak, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri S.J.Salunke, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellant are essentially the aspects relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa108605