: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.352 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1222 OF 2009 Banabai Shankar Khade & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Ratnabai Baburao Todkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the Appellants. Mr. Rakesh Patil and Mr. Amit Palkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 15 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhaur by judgment dated 18th August, 2003 in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1997 and by the Ad-Hoc District Judge, Kolhapur by judgment dated 17th April, 2009 in Civil Appeal No.389 of 2003. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that although a partition suit was decreed and the shares of the appellants and respondents were declared by the Civil Court in : 2 : Regular Civil Suit No.584 of 1971, the decree has not been executed and, in fact, is unexecutable. It is further submitted that in any event, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. According to the appellants, they have been in possession of the suit property despite the earlier decree passed by the trial Court and, therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error in not decreeing the suit which was filed for declaration of their ownership and an injunction. 3. In my view, both the Courts below have rightly held that there was documentary evidence on record to indicate that possession of the defendants’ share of the suit property had been delivered to them and was not with the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property or that they were exclusively in possession of the land prior to 1971. The Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence and dismissed the Suit. : 3 : 5. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court. The Second Appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1222 of 2009 pending in the Second Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.