: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.254 OF 2009 Amin Ibrahim Shaikh & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Arun Ramchandra Patil .. Respondent ..... Mr. Surel Shah for the appellants None for the respondent. ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondents herein instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mhada, Dist. Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge) for recovery of possession in regard to the land more particularly set out in the plaint by alleging that the appellants have committed a trespass. The said suit was tried by the said learned trial Judge and by judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1996, the said suit was : 2 : decreed and possession was ordered to be delivered in favor of respondent herein. This judgment came to be challenged by way of Regular Civil Appeal No.354 of 1996 in the learned District Court presided over by learned Ad-hoc District Judge III, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the learned District Judge) by judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2009 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order passed by learned trial Judge. Against this, the present Second Appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Shah on behalf of the appellants and perused the record. In the first place, there has been a concurrent finding as regards the trespass committed by the appellants in regard to the suit land. It will not be possible for this Court to interfere in the said concurrent finding as no substantial question of law was placed before the Court. 3. The only point which was placed before this Court was as regards the appreciation of the evidence as regards trespass on the basis of the evidence given by the Cadestral Surveyor. After having considered the : 3 : judgment of the learned trial Judge and the learned District Judge, I am inclined to observe that both the Courts arrived at proper conclusion by appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective. It is seen that the Courts below were impressed by the report of the Cadestral Surveyor who is an officer appointed by the Government of Maharashtra and proper weightage was given to these observations as the said officer is treated as an expert in determining area of the lands in question. In my view, the Courts below had arrived at proper conclusion by appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective. Hence, no interference is required. The second appeal cannot be admitted. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)