1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.38580 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1366 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2003 Tukaram Jyoti Patil .. Appellant. Vs. Sakharam Daulu Patil and ors .. Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Patil, i/b N.V.Mhate, for the appellant/applicant. Ms Anulata Saundalkar i/b GauriGodse, for respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 03/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent, Civil Application No.641 of 2003 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). By consent, Second Appeal is heard for admission forthwith. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by the appellant for perpetual and mandatory injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraph 6 of the Judgment and submitted that two maps drawn by the DILR are contrary to each other and in view T 2 thereof the courts below were wrong in recording the finding that there is no encroachment as alleged by the respondents- defendants. I have perused the judgments and more particularly the observations made by the appellate court in paragraph no.7. Both the courts below have considered the entire material on record including the maps and have held that there is a distance of 30 feet between the ditch (well) of the defendants and the suit land Gat No.75 belonging to the appellant. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and as I find that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either involved or raised in this appeal, it deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. The civil applications also stand disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)