1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 806 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 806 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 806 OF 2008 Smt. Mina Mukund Kini ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus Shri Dattatray Sitaram Kini & Ors. Respondents Ms. Priya Crasto, Advocate, i/b. Mr. A.B.Avhad, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th July, 2008. DATE: 28th July, 2008. DATE: 28th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appellant is the original plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she is the owner of land bearing Survey No.83 which is situated on the western side of the suit property which bears Survey No.16 Hissa 2 No.1 admeasuring 0-27.7 Ares situate at Village Tighare. According to the plaintiff, she is in settled possession of this property for the last 25 to 30 years. On 10.4.1994, she had permitted the office-bearers of Shri Bramhadeo Mandir @ Waghoba Devalay for construction of a temple in a corner of the suit land. According to her, the defendants, who are office-bearers of the said temple encroached upon the remaining portion of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit denying that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. According to them, the suit land belongs to Shivram Keshav Patil and four others. The owners of the property had given the suit land to the Trust which is in existence in the western portion of the suit land for 200 to 250 years. The trust is also registered. The defendants, as trustees of the said trust, are in possession of the property. According to them, the plaintiff had no right or interest in the suit property. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her possession over the suit property and also that she had given 3 permission to the office-bearers of the said temple toi make constructiion in a portion of the suit land. The trial Court also came to conclusion that the suit property was given to the trust of the temple by the owners of the land. With this finding, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.43 of 2005. That Appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal. 5. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has nowhere explained how and under what circumstances, she had come in possession of the suit property because she also admits that the suit property does not belong to her and that it belongs to one Shivram Patil who is not made party to the suit. 6. Taking into consideration the circumstances and in view of the concurrent finding of fact, I find that no question of law is involved in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)