SRJ sa-370-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.370 OF 2009 WITH C.A.S.NO.1345 OF 2009 Shri Janardan A. Sawant .. Appellant Vs. Pratibha S. Sawant (since deceased) through legal heir Rajendra S. Sawant & Others .. Respondents. Ms.Swati Sawant i/b. Mrs. Leena S.Sawant for Appellant. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1] The Appellant is original Plaintiff. He had filed Suit (RCS No.97/1998) for declaration of ownership and injunction. The property in dispute is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.34, Hissa No.0 ad-measuring H.3-64.O R, situated at village Mouje Oroskhurd, in Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. The Appellant alleged that his father had purchased the suit property on 10th June, 1933 from its previous owner by name Umabai Dev Sawant. He alleged that he was in possession of the land in question. The Respondents (Defendants) alleged that said Umabai Dev Sawant had only 1/3rd share which was transferred by SRJ sa-370-09.sxw 2 her in favour of one Ganpat Mahadeo Sawant. They contended that sale deed dated 10th June, 1933 is restricted to only 2 anna and 8 pai share and not for the entire land. They denied that the Plaintiff is owner and possessor of the entire land. 2] It appears that there was no dispute raised in respect of the ownership and possession of the Plaintiff (Appellant) to the extent of 1 acre 20 gunthas land, but dispute was raised in respect of the remaining part of the suit land. On merits, the Trial Court held that the Appellant failed to establish his ownership rights and possession in respect of the entire land. The Trial Courts findings are approved by the First Appellate Court while dismissing the Appeal (RCA No.119 of 2005). It appears from the record that the Appellant was unable to locate whether the suit land is part of Hissa No.1. He admitted the fact that the decree was drawn in RCS No.197 of 1919-20, though he has no knowledge about the appointment of pancha committee to resolve the dispute. The Court below noticed that by consent decree in RCS No.197 of 1919-20 the title in excess of 1 acre and 20 gunthas was not given to the Plaintiff s father i.e. Atmaram Sawant. There are concurrent findings of the facts based on the material. It is SRJ sa-370-09.sxw 3 well settled law that in the Second Appeal afresh appreciation of the evidence is impermissible. Therefore, the Second Appeal is outside ambit of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3] Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no costs. 4] Civil Application is disposed off. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J)