1 906 sa 709.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.709 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1903 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2010 Atik Ahmed Ahmed Ali & Ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Salamatullah Abdul Majid & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.R.S.Datar for the appellants. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 14/12/2010. PC: 1 This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below in the proceedings taken out by the appellants/obstructionists. The suit, filed by the respondents for eviction and possession of the suit premises was decreed. The appellants obstructed execution of the decree contending that they are in actual possession of the suit premises for a period of more than 12 years and that they have acquired ownership thereof by way of an adverse possession. It 2 906 sa 709.10.doc appears that in support of their claim they produced ration cards (Exhibit 25 and 26), passport (Exhibit 27), water tax receipts (Exhibit 28 and 29) and passbook (Exhibit 30) to show that they are in possession of the suit premises since 1979. I have perused the judgments of both the courts below, and in my opinion, the courts below have considered the entire material/evidence placed on record in proper prospective and have rightly rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. Both the courts below, after having considered the documents produced on record by the appellants in support of their contention have held that they do not pertain to the suit premises. That apart appellants have not produced any other material on record to show when they got into possession of the suit premises and that they are in actual, open, continuous and exclusive possession of the suit premises for a period of more than 12 years and that their possession was hostile to the real owner. The courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the appellants holding that they could not substantiate their claim of ownership by way of adverse possession. There is no dispute that the obstructionists are the heirs and legal representatives of the judgment-debtor and therefore, they seem to have obstructed the decree only with a view to protract the execution thereof. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact 3 906 sa 709.10.doc recorded by the courts below, and that there is sufficient material on record to sustain these findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either raised or involved in the appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 2 Consequently, Civil Application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)