( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2005 Vaijinath Shankar Raut .. Appellant Versus Yamunabai Prabhakar Raut .. Respondent Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 09.07.2009 P.C. :­ 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Adv. Shri V.G. Sakolkar for the appellant. This appeal is filed by the original defendant being aggrieved by the decree of perpetual injunction passed by the II Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur in Regular Civil Suit No.329 of 1984 decided on 10.10.1990, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in appeal by the Jt. District Judge, Latur, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1991 on 29th March, 2001. ( 2 ) 2. It is case of the present respondent that he was owner and in lawful possession of plot No.347 which was admeasuring 40’ x 25’. She purchased it from Ramchandra Baldwa in the year 1965. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff proved her possession over the property and she was entitled to injunction as prayed. 3. The First Appellate Court discussed the matter in detail and came to a conclusion that respondent/plaintiff has proved her title over plot No.347 of C.T.S. No. 2155; she was also in possession of the same; the appellant was obstructing her possession; therefore she was entitled to injunction. Both the Courts have considered evidence in detail. The appellant has produced certain receipts to show that he had paid taxes. Firstly it is an open plot of which possession is in dispute. Secondly it is observed by the First Appellate Court that there is nothing to show that City Survey No. 2155 was in­fact plot in question. The appellant also failed to prove that the plot No.349 was given by him to the husband of the respondent on lease. This is also observed that the appellant has failed to prove his possession over plot No.347 ( 3 ) as tenant. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it does not appear that there is any error of law in appreciating the facts and evidence on record. There are concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa76.05