1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1613 of 2008 Smt. Lata Ananda Biranje ........Appellant versus Bacharam Namdev Biranje ......... Respondent. Mr. N.J. Patil for the Appellant CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 01st OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Patil the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. The respondent's suit for injunction simplicitor is decreed by the trial court. The appellant filed appeal before the lower appellate court and the same is dismissed by a decree which is impugned in the present second appeal. Both the courts below concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property and the appellant/defendant obstructed respondent's possession in the suit property. 2 2. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Mr. Patil however relied upon judgments of the learned Single Judge of this court in Kashinath R. Chopade Vs. Purushottam T. Thekade and ors. reported in 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 471 and Kishanlal Maneklal Rathi Vs. Dinkar Yeshwant Patil reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 138, and submitted that boundaries cannot be fixed without there being measurement carried out by DILR and therefore the matter deserves to be remanded back to the trial court. In my view reliance placed by the learned counsel on the above judgments is misplaced in the teeth of the concurrent finding of the courts below. The respondent/plaintiff was successful in proving lawful possession over the suit property and appellant/defendant obstructed his lawful possession. Second appeal is therefore devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of Second appeal, civil application no. 1613/08 does not survive and is dismissed. ( R.V. MORE, J.)