* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2008 Shri. Chaitram Shankar Pawar ................Appellant V/S. Dattatraya Bhaurao Pawar & Ors. .................Respondents --------- Mr. S.K. Shinde, i/by. Sagar Kasar, adv.for appellant. Mr. M.M. Sathaye, adv.for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 26 th NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30th July 2007 by which the District court, Malegaon, Nashik dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2000 preferred by the appellant. By the said judgment and order the appeal court confirmed the decision dated 17th August, 1998 passed by the trial court. The appeal is opposed by the respondent. 3. One Dodha Patil was cultivating the suit property at Gat No.36 admeasuring 1 hectares 74 R as a tenant. He had two sons, Shankar and Bhaurao. The appellant is one of the heirs of Shankar. Respondents no.1 to 7 are the heirs of Bhaurao. Respondents no.8 to 12 are the other heirs of Shankar. Respondents no.8 to 12 have not supported the claim of the appellant at any point of time. They have supported the case of respondents no.1 to 7. * 2 * 4. After the death of Dodha Patil, name of Shankar was entered in revenue records as tenant in respect of the suit land by declaring him as a tenant. Later, Shankar had filed Suit No.41 of 1959 against Bhaurao for an injunction simplicitor contending that he was the exclusive owner and possesser of the suit land and Bhaurao had no concern with it. Defendant-Bhaurao appeared in the suit and took up the plea of co-ownership. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge referred the matter to the revenue authorities under Section 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for determination of the tenancy right. However, thereafter no further steps have been taken by Shankar and the suit came to be dismissed for default. In the tenancy proceedings, it was decided that Shankar and Bhaurao are the joint tenants in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, Shankar filed Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 1979 against Bhaurao for permanent injunction setting up the same case of exclusive ownership to the suit property. The suit was was contested and dismissed on 30th August, 1993. Shankar challenged the judgment and decree by preferring an appeal , which appeal was also dismissed on 14th February, 1991. It was the evidence of Shankar in Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 1979, that he had no receipt to show that he had paid price of the suit land. It was the case of Bhaurao that in the year 1959, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Shankar and on acceptance of the said amount Shankar had given up his share in the ½ suit property. Shankar in his evidence recorded in that suit admitted that he * 3 * had received a sum of Rs.1,000/- from Bhaurao. He has also admitted that the suit property though standing in his name, Bhaurao was in actual possession and cultivation of the suit land. The appellant herein is claiming a right to the suit land only through, Shankar. The claim of Shankar himself of exclusive right to the suit property having been dismissed, the appellant now seeks to stake his claim of share in the suit property. However, even his claim of ½ share has been rejected by the courts below. In view of the evidence of ½ Shankar in the earlier suit and also the evidence of the appellant himself in the present suit wherein he deposed that Shankar had sold his share alloted to him in the joint family properties during his lifetime. This would mean that even if Shankar were to have share in the suit properties, the same had been ½ disposed off by him during his lifetime. In that circumstance, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the trial court as regards the ownership of the suit property, its possession and the right claimed by the appellant to the property, which is completely supported by the material brought on record, cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, there cannot be any interference with these concurrent findings. There is also no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. 5. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.718 of 2008 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 4 *