1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.800 OF 2008. Ratilal Ramji Patil ... Appellant. Versus Dagadu Ramji Patil and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 09.12.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The suit (RCS No.65/2002) was filed by the Respondent No.1 for declaration of ownership in respect of the house property bearing Grampanchayat No.206 (old House No.196) and 2 perpetual injunction. His case was that his father purchased the suit house vide registered sale deed dated 19.11.1952 from one Bula Dhudku. Still, then his father was in continuous possession of the suit house. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are owners of house property situated on western side of his house. They unnecessarily disturbed his possession and, therefore, he sought declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree. 3. Mr.Deshpande, would submit that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding identity of the house property purchased by the plaintiff's father vide sale deed dated 19.11.1952 (Exh.41). He would submit that because of boundaries shown in Kabulayat (Exh.46) issued by the Government in favour of the plaintiff's father, which indicated existence of house of eastern side, owned by Dhangar. It was inferred that it must have been the suit property of Bhavdu Dagdu Dhangar. It appears that description of the plot allotted to father of the plaintiff vide Kabulayat dated 3 27.6.1927 showed existence of house of one Bavdu Dagdu on western side. There is no Grampanchayat record about the ownership of the suit house property and as such dispute had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is important to notice that the defendants did not prove as to how they are concerned with the suit house property. It is true that the trial Court and the first appellate Court considered the boundaries shown in the Kabulayat (Exh.46) which indicated that house of a Dhangar is situated abutting the said plot which was allotted to father of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not say that there was any other Dhangar, who owned that house property. Ultimately, the Courts below have considered probabilities and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. The findings rendered on preponderance of probabilities can not be regarded as substantial question of law in the Second Appeal. Hence, the appeal falls outside the scope of Section 100 of the C.P.C. In view of "Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975, this appeal is 4 untenable and as such is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa80008