S.A. 127/2008 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 127/2008 RAJENDRA RAMRAO MULE VS. VITHAL RAMRAO MULE Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. Nirgude, J DATED : 9th June, 2011. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent sole. 1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the appellant / plaintiff has failed to prove his case of exclusive possession of the suit shop. It is common ground that the suit shop is ancestral property of the parties to the appeal. They are real brothers. The suit shop belonged to their father.It is also common ground that after their father’s demise, they divided the shop into two parts and started their independent business. The case of the appellant / plaintiff that the respondent gave up his right to his portion and delivered possession of the same to him pursuant to certain S.A. 127/2008 2 agreement has been disbelieved by the Courts below. The learned judges of the lower Courts almost held that the respondent is still occupying the half portion of the shop. The finding on facts thus decided the fate of the appellant’s case. I do not find any reason why at this stage the finding on facts should be disturbed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/June9/sa127.08