Ndm 1 sa.991.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2007 Jamila A.Majid Majgaonkar and anr. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS Sarpancha, Group Grampanchayat, Karla and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------ Mr. S.M.Kazi Advocate for Appellants. ------------------------ CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J DATE : 11th August, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the Appellant who is the original plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 contends that the permission was granted to her father to make construction of the house and accordingly the construction was made. Her property is recorded as City Survey No. 755. Plaintiff No. 2 is the husband of the plaintiff No.1. According to them, the strip of land admeasuring 60 ft x 3 ft, which is in dispute, is part of the City Survey No. 755 belonging to plaintiff No.1. The Defendant No. 1 - Grampanchayat and the other defendants want to lay drainage pipe through the said strip of land. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 2000 for declaration and perpetual injunction. As the drainage pipe was actually laid, the claim of mandatory injunction was added. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title over that strip of land and the suit came to be dismissed. Regular Civil Appeal No. Ndm 2 sa.991.07.sxw 57 of 2004 filed by the Appellants also came to be dismissed. Hence the Second Appeal. 2 According to the Appellants, their property is covered by City Survey No. 755 and the disputed strip of land is part of that property. However, they did not get the property measured nor any material was produced on record to show that the disputed strip of land is part of their property. In view of the concurrent finding of the fact by both the courts below, I do not find any question of law in the Second Appeal. 3 Therefore, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. J.H. BHATIA, J.