:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.421 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.421 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.421 OF 2008 Shri Tatyabhau Genu Midgule ...Appellant. v. Shri Dadabhau Genu Midgule ...Respondent. Mr.U.B.Nighot , adv. for the Appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 18th September, 2008. DATE: 18th September, 2008. DATE: 18th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who is original defendant. The plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant are brothers inter-se. Partition took place between the brothers in 1982 during the lifetime of their father. A well is situated in the field Gat no.193, Hissa No.3, which was allotted to the share of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, all the three brothers have right to take water from the said well and accordingly, entries were taken in the other rights column in the record of rights. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he has 1/3rd share in the said well and for permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to him, he had constructed well in 1984 and he is exclusive owner of the said well. His brothers including the plaintiff have no right in the said well. After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of :2: the plaintiff. Defendant preferred the Regular Civil Appeal no.508 of 2003. That appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the defendant has preferred the second appeal. 2. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the well was constructed by all the three brothers jointly and each of them had got share in the well and that the defendant could not prove that he had exclusively constructed the well and he is owner of the well. According to the defendant, well was constructed in 1984. It appears that in the same year, entry was taken in record of rights showing share of all the three brothers. Defendant admitted in his examination-in-chief that all the bills, documents, etc. about the expenditure for construction of the well and for laying pipelines, etc. are with the plaintiff, though he claims that he had given money to the plaintiff for that purpose. Taking into consideration the concurrent finding of the facts by both the Courts below and the circumstances, I find no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 3. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)