( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.782 OF 2009 Umrao s/o Nagorao Kurhe and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Marotrao s/o Tulshiram Kurhe and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the appellants. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The appellants are original plaintiffs whose suit for perpetual injunction (R.C.S. No. 64/2005) came to be dismissed and the first Appellate Court confirmed the decree. 3. The appellants asserted that house property bearing G.P. No. 244 admeasuring 18 feet x 26 feet is their ancestral property. Their father Nagorao was owner thereof. They sought injunction as being in ( 2 ) lawful possession thereof. The Courts below noticed that the appellant No. 1 – Umrao could not prove his status as son of deceased Nagorao and that the lawful possession of the appellants was not established. 4. On going through the judgements of both the Courts below, it is amply clear that the entries in the property register maintained by the Village Panchayat, supported case of the respondent. It appears that originally, construction permission was sought by the sharer i.e. Nagorao. The house property is an open plot. The defendants obstructed construction of the property for the reason that excessive area was being constructed. The letter dated 10-10-2005 written by the appellant No. 1 was not believed because said Nagorao was allotted only 18 feet x 26 feet area out of the plot No. 244. The findings of both the Courts below are that of facts. There is no question of law involved. The concurrent findings of both the Courts cannot be questioned in the appeal which are outside the pale of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Apex Court in “Arumugham (Dead by L.Rs.) and others v. Sundrambal ( 3 ) and another” (AIR 1999 S.C. 2216) and “Kashmir Sing v. Harnam Sing and another” (AIR 2008 S.C. 1749), has taken view that even if there is error committed while appreciating evidence, then also the concurrent findings cannot be questioned in the second appeal. In this view of the matter, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa782-09