1 Civil Appln. no. 1051.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7602 OF 2004 Nivrutti S/o namdeo Satwadhar and others ... Appellants V E R S U S Barikrao S/o Arjun Satwadhar and others ... Respondents ... Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni,Advocate for Appellants ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This Second Appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellants were the plaintiffs. They stated in the plaint that the land survey No.2/1 admeasuring 12 Guntha was their ancestral property and they have undivided share in it with the defendant no.1 who happened to be their cousin. They asserted that the respondent no.1 unauthorizedly without their permission sold a piece from the suit land. They sought declaration that such sale deed was not binding on them etc. But, unfortunately, the appellants/plaintiffs did not describe the suit property properly in the plaint. They have not 2 Civil Appln. no. 1051.04 mentioned the boundaries of the suit land. They tried to take help from the description of the small piece which was sold by the respondent no. 1, mentioned in the sale deed, but even the description in the sale deed would not help them. Though it can be presumed that the small piece of land sold by the respondent no.1 was part of the land survey No.2/1, it does not give indication as to where the remaining suit land would lie in juxtaposition to this alienated piece of land. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the description of the suit property was not sufficient to identify it. I find there is no need to interfere in the findings of the Courts below. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law arising in the present appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No.7602 of 2004 for stay stands disposed of. Sd/­ (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ ok