1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1202 OF 2007 Shamrao Ramchandra Bagal........Appellant versus Maruti Gopal Tiware & ors........ Respondents. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Appellant Mr. V. B. Rajure for respondents nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Arjunwadkar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajure for the respondents. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondents are original plaintiffs. The suit for injunction simplicitor was decreed by the trial court and the lower appellate court confirmed the decree. Hence the present Second Appeal. 2. Both the courts below concurrently held that suit property namely area of 41 ares out of Gat No.253 was the separate property of deceased Balkabai, who executed sale deed in favour of the respondents on 25-2-1979. The appellant 2 could not prove that this property is ancestral property. The lower courts below concurrently held that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. Thus the respondents succeeded in proving the title as well as possession of the property and therefore rightly injunction was granted. The Apex Court in Mohanlal V. Nihal Singh reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 2942 held that the finding of plaintiff's possession concurrently recorded by both the courts below, cannot be interfered with in Second Appeal. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of Second appeal Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)