1 (SA 419 of 2001 with CAS 410 of 2006 in SA 419 of 2001) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 410 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2001 Vishnu Kondiba Yewale ...Appellant Vs. Popat Laxman Yewale & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Mandar Limaye for Appellant Mr.Leena Patil h/f. Mr. P.M. Pradhan for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1. 2. The Appellant is the original Defendant No.2. The suit was filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs for a declaration of his title to the suit and also for and order of injunction restraining the Defendant from obstructing his enjoyment over the suit well and the suit of one Guntha, adjacent to that well. The Trial Court decreed the suit and this order has been confirmed in appeal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that the father of the Plaintiffs 2 (SA 419 of 2001 with CAS 410 of 2006 in SA 419 of 2001) and the Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 22.2.1947 purchased three lands survey nos. 33/3+6. It is submitted that the dispute was in respect of the said well. It is submitted that the sale deed obtained in 1947, there is reference of one well and it is also mentioned that land survey no. 35/2 there is one well adjacent to nala which is in dilapidated condition and the property was purchased along with rights in that well. It is submitted that the Trial Court has relied on the evidence of Chandrakant Pingale, who was appointed as a commissioner. It is submitted that no opportunity was given by the Trial Court to the Defendant to challenge the said report. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs had not established that the well in question was constructed after partition. It is submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence being led by the Plaintiffs, the Trial Court could not have given the finding in favour of the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that the Lower Appellate Court also has committed the same error. 4. I have gone through the judgment and order of the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court. Both the Courts have given the concurrent finding in favour of the Plaintiffs regarding location of the well and also have held that the Plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit well. There is a concurrent finding of fact in favour of the 3 (SA 419 of 2001 with CAS 410 of 2006 in SA 419 of 2001) Plaintiffs. Hence, it will not be possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. In Second Appeal, this Court is not expected to again re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders passed by the Lower Courts. No substantial question of law is raised. Second Appeal is dismissed and disposed of. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)