* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2005 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 449 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2005 Smt.Shevanta Nana Oute (now decd thru appellant nos.2 to 4 as heirs) ....Appellants vs. Shri.Baburao Dhondi Oute (now decd thru respondent no.2 and 3 as heirs) ....Respondents ========= Mr.G.N.Salunkhe,h/f.Mr.G.C.Sawant, Adv. for Appellant. Mr.R.T.Shinde, Adv. for respondents no.1(a), 1(b) and 2. Shri.V.S.Kokitkar, adv.for respondents no.3 to 6. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th July, 2009 PC :- 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2003 passed by the District Court, Satara dismissing the appeal arising out of judgment and order dated 10th March, 1995 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.55 of 1979. By the impugned judgments, the suit filed by * 2 * the respondent is decreed and the appellants have been directed to hand over possession of the land admeasuring 30 are from Gat No.114 as indicated on the measurement plan to the respondents. The suit as filed originally by the respondents was for an injunction simplicitor to restrain the appellants from obstructing possession of the respondents over the dispute land. Later, the plaint came to be amended to include therein the prayer for possession as according to the respondents they were dispossessed from the disputed land during pendency of the suit. The trial court after appreciating the evidence led before it, held that the respondents are the owners of the disputed land and were in its possession. It also held that the appellants had encroached upon this portion of land. It rejected the evidence of the appellants that the land had come to their possession under the consolidation scheme. The finding as regards title to the suit property, encroachment by the appellants over the land have been upheld by the appeal court. Thus, there are concurrent findings of both the courts as regards the title to the disputed land and the encroachment by the appellants over it. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents can claim only 50% of the land belonging to their ancestor, Chimabai and if one calculates 50% of the holding of * 3 * Chimabai the disputed land will be in excess thereof. He also submits that both the courts were in error in arriving at a conclusion over the title of the suit property based on the revenue records since the year 1939. Undisputedly, the entries in the revenue records have never been challenged by the appellants. It is an established principle of law that the revenue records standing for a long period of time have their own importance to establish the title and possession over the immovable property. 3. I have perused the judgments of both the courts below. The findings of facts arrived at by the courts is a probable and reasonable finding based on the evidence before the court. There cannot be any interference with the concurrent findings of facts. There is no question of law arising for consideration of the court in the present proceedings. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4. With the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application NO.449 of 2005 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]