1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY C IVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2009 SECOND APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji Kadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Sunil Shah & Anr. ... Respondents SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji Kadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Subhash Shah & Anr. ... Respondents SECOND APPEAL NO.292 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji Kadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Sushil Subhash Shah & Anr. ... Respondents SECOND APPEAL N.293 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji kadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. 2 Smt. Sudha Sunil Shah & Anr. ... Respondents SECOND APPEAL NO.294 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji Kadav & Ors. Appellans vs. Shubhash Shah & Ors. Respondents SECOND APPEAL NO.295 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shivaji Kadav & Ors. Appellants Vs. Smt. Sushma Subhash Shah & Anr. Respondents Mr. R.S.Datar,Advocate, for the appellants. (in all the matters) Smt. Sharmila V.Deshmukh,Advocate, for respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 20th July, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They claim that the suit property was granted to the original defendant No.2 - Group Gram Panchayat and the respondent No.1, who represents the Shah family, had made construction of a wall on the suit land without any right, title or interest and that due to that action of the defendant No.1, the people of the village have been deprived of their right to use the open land. There is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs/present appellants have failed to prove that the land was allotted to the Grampanchayat or that the people of the village have got any right, 3 interest or title over that land. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the property belongs to the Shah family. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any material on the basis of which it could be said that the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below are perverse or against the record. 3. Therefore, I find no substantial questions of law involved in these Appeals. The Appeals stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)