1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.184 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.555 OF 2010 Umabai Bana Suryavanshi & Ors. .. Appellants. Vs. Varshabai V.Raichura & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Devendra Joshi for the appellants. Mr.P.K.Dhakepalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Ranjit Dharmadhikari for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 1/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by the respondents for declaration that they are the owners of CTS No. 3008 i.e. Survey No.2, Hissa No.1 and for possession thereof by removing and/or demolishing house no.16/1 and the adjoining portion of the house as shown in map at Exhibit-89. They have also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from making any further encroachment on C.T.S. No.3008. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the suit was not properly valued and in view thereof the courts S 2 below ought to have dismissed the suit on that ground. He then submitted that the claim of the appellants that they have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession has not been considered by the court below, and lastly he submitted that the plaintiffs were not tenant and/or could not have claimed tenancy in view of 43-C of the B.T. & A. L. Act and that the court below has committed grave error of law by not referring the issue to the Tenancy Authority as contemplated by section 85-A of the B.T. & A.L. Act. I have perused the judgments of the courts below so also other material placed before the court. The issue whether valuation of the suit was correct was not raised either before the trial Court or before the appeal court and in view thereof it is not open to the appellants to raise this contention at this stage. Hence the first submission is rejected. Insofar as issue of adverse possession is concerned that has also been rightly answered in negative, in view of the fact that the appellants have disputed ownership of the respondents over the suit land. The last contention also deserves to be rejected in view of the admitted facts that 32-G proceedings were initiated and concluded and thereafter 32-M certificate under the provisions of B.T & A.L. Act was also issued in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. The order passed in 32-G proceedings or 32-M certificate was not challenged by the appellants before the 3 appropriate forum. In the circumstances all the three submissions are rejected. Considering that there are concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below and no substantial question of law is either raised and involved in this appeal, it deserves to be rejected. Order accordingly. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)