SA. 77-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 77 OF 2011 Smt. Shanti Francis Pharel & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Rajan Peter Phonseka & ors. ...Respondents *** Mrs. Neeta Karnik, for the Appellant. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JUNE 24, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The appellant are the original plaintiffs and respondents are the original defendants. Suit was filed by the appellant for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, through themselves and/or their agents and/or servants from putting a compound wall in respect of the suit property, or making any further change or hand over possession to the third party, and for further order of injunction, restraining defendant Nos. 13 and 14 from carrying out construction in respect of suit property, or changing nature of the suit property, and for SA. 77-11 - 2 - mandatory order of injunctions, directing defendant Nos. 13 and 14 to remove the illegal construction of City Survey No. 166 (old Survey No. 155, Hissa No.1/1-C). The trial Court has dismissed the suit and the Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit - firstly, on the ground that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties, since the other heirs were not brought on record; secondly, on the ground that the sale-deed has not been challenged by the appellant/original plaintiff; thirdly, on the ground that both the courts below had erred in not granting perpetual injunction and holding that since claim of the appellants/plaintiffs before the tenancy authorities was still pending, they were disentitled to claim the relief of injunction. It is further submitted that both the lower courts had erred in refusing to grant order of perpetual injunction on the ground that the sole heirs of the original owners had sold the land and the appellant’s father-in-law had continued to hold land as tenant, and other grounds, challenging the finding recorded by both the courts below. 3. I have perused the judgment and order of both the lower courts. In my view, no substantial question of law is raised in the Second SA. 77-11 - 3 - Appeal. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]