1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2009 Venkati Pundlik Wadje ... Appellant. Versus Govind Mukunda Wadje & others ... Respondentw. -------- Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the apellant. Shri U.B. Bilolikar for respondent No. 1. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE,J. DATE: 12th OCTOBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard, learned counsel for respective parties. 2) This is an appeal filed by Original Defendant No. 1 raising exception to the concurrent findings recorded by the Court below. 3) The plaintiff instituted suit for declaration of his title in respect of his land 2 survey No. 35/1 admeasuring 65 ares and for perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiff, disputed land is his ancestral property and same is inherited by him from his father. He is in possession over the property, however, defendants having no concern, are interfering in his possession. 4) The defendants contraveted claim of plaintiff contending that the suit property is kept for the purpose of grazing the cattle. The case of the plaintiff in respect of partition of ancestral property has been contraverted by the defendants. 5) After considering evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has substantiated his case and was pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. The judgement and decree passed by the trial Court was subjected in appeal in RCA No. 50/1997 at the instance of defendants which came to be heard by the learned Is Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded who was pleased 3 to dismiss the appeal. 5) I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below and heard arguments of learned Advocate Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar for appellant and learned Advocate Shri U.B. Bilolikar for respondent No. 1. The Courts below have recorded finding of facts based on appreciation of evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded by the Courts below need not be interfered in exercise of powers under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 5) The Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed summarily. (R.M. BORDE, J.) sdm/ 449.09 4