IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2008 Akaram Bhimrao Shinde & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Dadasaheb Tukaram Shinde & Ors. Respondents Mr. Milind Deshmukh, Advocate, for the appellants. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in their possession over the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, oral partition had taken place in 1982 and on that basis they are in possession of the suit property. The defendants denied the oral partition. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court held that partition had not taken place and the plaintiffs are holding 1/3rd share in the property. The plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.115 of 1999. That appeal was also dismissed. Thus, there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial question of law involved in the matter. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)