1 270.99-sa bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.270 OF 1999 Vasantrao Mahadeo Mohite & Ors. ..Appellant Vs. Shamrao Damodar Mohite (Deceased) Through : His Legal Heirs ..Respondents Mr.R.S.Kate for appellant Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for respondents. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is a Second Appeal for admission preferred by the original defendants. The respondents are legal heirs of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property which is described as Gat No.635 admeasuring 84R situated at Belawade (B), Tq.Karad, Dist. Satara held by the plaintiff as its lawful tenant. 3. The defendants are adjoining land owners and the dispute is mostly of 30Rs of area out of suit property which is described as “Potkharab” land and covered by Babul and Neem trees and other trees and “Nullah”. Since it is not under cultivation of either of the parties, it is susceptible to such dispute which is mostly common dispute between the neighbouring cultivators. Therefore, the plaintiff complained about the defendants’ trespass in the said land for causing damage to the standing trees belonging to him and filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction for peaceful enjoyment of the property and to protect his possession. 2 270.99-sa 4. Defendants’ case is that of adverse possession over the disputed land of 30Rs and therefore, laid their way to the standing trees. The suit was decided on merits by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and it came to be decreed as prayed by the judgment and order dated 31st July, 1993. The first appeal preferred by the defendants is also dismissed. Perused the impugned judgment and order of both the Courts below. The Trial Court’s finding and the judgment have been maintained by the first appellate Court and thus, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded on all issues with reasons. As stated above, the dispute is limited to a strip of potkharab land and standing trees which is neither in cultivation of plaintiff nor defendants. On its both sides, the parties have their respective cultivation. 5. When the matter is decided by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court on the issue of possession for granting appropriate injunction as mentioned above, there is no scope for the Second Appeal which is also devoid of substantial question of law. No case is made out. The impugned judgment and order calls no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)