1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.634 OF 2007 Sitaram Govind Gurav (Deceased) Through legal heirs: a) Asha Sitaram Gurav & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Rukmini Gopal Gurav (Deceased) Through legal heirs: a) Dattaram Balling Gurav & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.L.Patki, adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Jyoti C. Pendse i/by Shri C.K.Pendse, advs. For the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. According to them, two lands admeasuring 2 acres 16 Gunthas and 3 acres, 4 gunthas, total 5 acres 20 gunthas, out of 101A of Village: Saitawade belong to the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.3 to 6 since the time of their ancestors and even since the year 1880, their names were recorded. In 1954-55 names of their predecessor Vithubin Balling Gurav was recorded. In 1999 , defendant nos.1 and 2 started construction on the land at a distance of 100 ft. from the house of the plaintiff , therefore, they issued 2 notice to the defendant nos.1 and 2 to stop the work and to remove the material. Plaintiffs came to know that names of the defendant nos.1 and 2 were recorded in the revenue record of the suit land, therefore, they filed suit for declaration of title and possession and for removal of the structure of the defendants. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs. According to them, the land belongs to them and there is record about it. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title and possession. This was challenged by the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2001. Appeal was also dismissed. The First Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title. Hence, the Second Appeal. 3 The learned counsel for the appellants contends that they had approached Revenue Authority for correction of revenue entries but that proceeding was closed by giving direction to the appellant to first get their title proved in the civil Court. On the other hand, the Civil Court relying upon the same record came to conclusion that plaintiffs are not owners of the property. The learned counsel also contended that one Gopal Singh Gurav was their predecessor and since the time of said Gopal Singh, they are the owners of the property. It appears that a predecessor of plaintiffs as well as of the defendant nos.1 and 2 had the 3 common name. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants, defendants are trying to take benefit of the same. However, nowhere in the plaint pedigree or geneology of the plaintiffs was given to establish that the suit property actually belongs to them and was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendants by taking disadvantage of the common name of the some ancestors. 4 After perusal of the record, it appears that it was purely question of fact and there is concurrent finding of the fact against the plaintiffs. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 5 Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)