IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2004 Bapu Jagu Gadkari ...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Bhiku Hanmant Mohite & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.P.B.Shah, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.V.Y.Jadhav h/f Mr.Vijay Patil, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 19th NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Shah, advocate for the appellant and Mr.Jadhav, advocate for the respondents. The above second appeal is filed by original defendant. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against appellant-original defendant No.1 and others. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged this decree before lower appellate court and by the impugned judgment and decree their appeal came to be allowed. The appellant- original defendant No.1 did not dispute and in fact it was admitted that the area of 15 Ars out of Gat No.365 was sold to respondents 1 to 3 by Hirabai. There is also no dispute that Hirabai was one of the co- owner of Gat No.365. A registered deed of partition is on record under which Hirabai was given share to the extent of 15 Aars in Gat 1 No.365 which share is purchased by respondents 1 to 3 by a registered sale deed. The lower appellate court on the basis of evidence of P.W.2 and the report of the Court Commissioner came to the conclusion that the suit property is purchased by respondents 1 to 3 from Hirabai and thereafter held that they are the owners and in possession of the same and accordingly relief of declaration and injunction was granted. In my view the aforesaid findings are recorded after appreciating the evidence on record. The appreciation of evidence cannot said to be perverse. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. In view of disposal of second appeal civil application No. 1232/04 does not survive. Same also stands disposed of. 19.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2