1 SA 629/2010 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.B. Tajane for the appellants. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants who are the original plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs and the defendant 2 SA 629/2010 no.4 are real brothers and the defendant no.5 is their real sister. Defendant nos.1 to 3 are owners of the adjoining land. The plaintiffs filed the suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession of the suit land. They claim that the suit land was purchased in the name of their mother from the joint family funds and after her death the plaintiffs had become the owners. They further claim that the defendant no.5 had relinquished her share in the suit land and therefore she has no right therein. They further claim that defendant nos.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant no.5 are disturbing their possession of the suit land requiring them to file the suit for injunction. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession over the suit land. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the said 3 SA 629/2010 finding. 4. The question whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit is a question of fact. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land is a pure finding of fact not giving rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)