1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.526/2010 Shankar Kishan Kukudkar and ohters -vs- Mahadeo Kudaji Vairagade and one another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30, 2010 . Heard Shri C. S. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri V. N. Morande, the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are the original defendants. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of the Plot Nos.122 and 123 and the suit property was adjoining their plots and they were using the same since 1988. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs lost the possession over the suit property and, therefore, prayed for possession of the suit property. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that the plaintiffs were using the suit property for a long time and it was adjoining Plot Nos.122 and 123. According to the defendants, they were the owners 2 of Plot No.124 and the suit property was adjoining their plots and they were using the same for a long time. Both the Courts on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their case that the suit property was adjoining their plots and they were using the same since the year 1988. The Courts held that the defendants had not succeeded in proving that the suit property was adjoining Plot No.124 and the defendants were in possession of the same prior to the institution of the suit. While recording these findings, both the Courts appreciated the evidence on record in a reasonable manner. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE