SA. 720-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 720 OF 2010 Managing Director, Pune Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. President/Chief Secretary, Bharti Vidyapith & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. J. Shekhar with Shweta Jadhav i/b J. Shekhar & Co., for the Appellant. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JUNE 9, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff. He had filed the suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for an order of injunction, restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession in respect of Plot ‘J’. The trial court dismissed the suit. Appeal which is filed against the said order was also dismissed. Both the courts below have held that plaintiffs were not in a position prove their possession or title in respect of Plot ‘J’. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant SA. 720-10 - 2 - submits that appellate court in its order has observed that plaintiff could not prove right, title and interest to the suit property since no demarcation of the boundaries was done at the instance of the plaintiff, and therefore, no decision could be taken in respect of Plot ‘J’. It is submitted that therefore, both the courts below were not certain about demarcation of the said property. In my view, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is an admitted position that no demarcation of the property was made by the plaintiff and that fact was admitted by the plaintiff that he did not get measured his plot namely Plot ‘J’ from the concerned authority. The plaintiff could have applied to the appropriate authority for getting the plot demarcated and/or getting the dispute regarding the boundary resolved by approaching the appropriate authorities. He can still avail of the said remedy if it is available in accordance with law. However, it will not be possible to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, and therefore, Second Appeal is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]