1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1149 OF 2003 1. Sopan Limba Ugalmugle Died L.Rs. and others .. .. .. Appellants Versus 1. Babru Tukaram Ghayal and another .. .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri S. S. Chaudhary advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Second appeal is filed by original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit bearing R.C.S. No. 244/1981 by the Civil Judge J. D. Kaij on 13.12.1991. The judgment and decree is further confirmed in R. C. A. No. 22/1992 decided on 2 07.02.2002 by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge Ambajogai. The appellate court has held that the appellant is in possession of some property but not as per the map filed along with plaint at Exh. 79. The appellate court also held that, there is no title to the plaintiff to entire land described in the plaint. There is concurrent findings of facts by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It is held that the map annexed with the plaint in respect of which injunction is claimed does not tally with the map drawn by cadestrial surveyor D.W. 3 Ganpath Rathod. There is no application for correcting the map annexed with the plaint, so as to make it in conformity with the actual land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In view of this refusal to grant perpetual injunction in respect of excess area shown in the map annexed with the plaint was right. In this situation there are concurrent finding of fact, no substantial question of law arise. Hence appeal dismissed at the stage of admission. 2. In view of dismissal of appeal civil application No. 1149/2003 does not survive, hence disposed of accordingly. [ P. R. BORKAR, ] JUDGE bsb/June09/SA 219.05