IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (St.) NO. 20911 OF 2007 Hanmanta Timma Pujari since deceased by his legal heirs Smt.Hirabai Hanmanta Pujari & Ors. ............ Appellants V/s Narhari Bnalku Kavade since deceased by his legal heirs Shankar Narhari Kavade & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.A.P.Vanarse, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.Mandar Limaye, Adv. For respondent Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9. Mr.A.B.Tajane, Adv. For respondent No.7-d. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 25th NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. The appellants are the original defendants and respondents are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.458/07. Suit was filed for possession of the suit land after removal of appellant' s encroachment over the suit property. Both the Courts below concurrently upheld ownership and title of the respondents-plaintiffs. It was also held that the appellants are in unauthorized possession of the suit property. These findings are recorded after appreciating the evidence on record. Appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in the present second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 2. At this stage Mr.Vanarse, learned advocate for the appellants stats that during the pendency of the appeal notification under the Maharashtra Sulm Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is issued in respect of the suit property. Mr.Limaye, states that though the notification is issued same does not pertain to the suit property. Mr.Vanarse, further states that he has also filed independent suit for declaration that suit property is covered under the said notification. In view of this development, though I do not find any merit in the second appeal, I am inclined to continue the status quo granted earlier in the civil application No.683/08 taken out in the aforesaid second appeal for a period of three weeks from today. It is however made clear that trial Court shall not get influenced in any way by the said status quo being granted and continued and the appellant' s suit No.458/07 or application for interim relief shall be disposed of independently on its own merit. 25.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.)