1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2003 Rangnath Lumaji Bhise .. .. Appellant Versus Raosaheb Lumaji Bhise and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. P. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 01. Heard learned counsel extensively. He criticized concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts, claiming that they are perverse and not in tune with the record. With the assistance of learned counsel I have read both the judgments. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, learned II Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ahmednagar, has observed as under : 2 "The plaintiff asserted declaration and exclusive ownership and also injunction in relation to the cattle shade admeasuring 65 x 35 feet of 44 tins situated in land gat No. 334. The plaintiff claimed, it was defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who caused obstruction in the enjoyment of plaintiff and they also caused obstruction in joint possession of plaintiff. The genealogy between the parties is not in controversy. The earlier litigation bearing R.C.S. No. 23/1972 and R.C.S. No. 678/1974, which came to be settled, is also not in controversy. Even if one one perused the two suits, by virtue of compromise it cannot be gathered that the cattle shade (Gotha) of 65 x 35 feet could be exclusive property of plaintiff. " Summer salt as tried to be accelerated by the plaintiff could not be legally entertained. The findings by both the Courts against the plaintiff, does not show perversity, which is in tune with the record. The second appeal sans merit, it is dismissed, no costs. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] bsb/April 10