IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.361 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.361 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.361 OF 2007. Shri Dadu Naru Mali & Ors ...Appellants Versus. Shri Popat Iswara Mali ...Respondent Shri Nitin P. Deshpande for the Appellants. Shri Bhushan Walimbe for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 28th February, 2008. : 28th February, 2008. : 28th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. On the oral prayer made by the advocate for the appellants, the appeal is restored which was dismissed in the morning session. Heard advocates appearing for the parties. The appeal is by the original defendants. The respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the basis of the title. The suit was contested by the present appellants by filing written statement. The trial Court held that the respondent-plaintiff has established his possession and ownership over the suit property "C". The appeal preferred by the appellants in the District Court has been partly allowed and a decree has been passed in terms of alternative prayer for possession made by the respondents. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the suit land was received by : 2 : 2 : 2 : appellants even before execution of the Gift Deed. It is contended that there was a mutation entry made for transferring the suit land from the name of the first appellant to the name of the second and third appellants to which no objection was raised by the respondent. 3. I have considered the submissions. The challenge by the appellants to the Gift Deed executed by deceased Naru is on the ground that since he was not in possession of area of 29 Ares, he could not have executed the Gift Deed. The contention of the appellants was that the deceased Naru had executed a possessory mortgage in favour of one Rangrao Patil and later on the said land was sold in favour of Tatya. The finding of fact recorded by the courts below is that the said transactions were relating to a different land. After perusing the Sale Deed and the Mortgage Deed, a finding of fact has been recorded that the said documents relate to a different property. 4. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below as regards the ownership of the appellant. No substantial questions of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.