1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2009 Dhondiba s/o Mahadu Bhoj & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Dattu s/o Nagoba @ Nagu Bhoi .. RESPONDENT Shri A.S. Barlota, Advocate holding for Shri S.K. Barlota, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Original defendants are raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff / respondent herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 237/1992 claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of residential property bearing Gram Panchayat house no. 570 admeasuring 144 ft. X 66 ft. situate at village Halli Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. According to 2 plaintiffs, they are the owners of the property and the defendant is causing interference in their possession and as such, plaintiffs claim prohibitory orders against the defendant. Defendant caused appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant has admitted that plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the constructed premises whereas defendant has disputed the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the open space adjoining the constructed portion. According to defendant, the open space has been purchased by him alongwith six other persons from original owner and the original owner had issued a letter on 26-10-1353 fasli. Defendant as such contends that the plaintiffs have no entitlement in respect of the open space adjoining the constructed premises which according to defendant is earmarked for common user or the defendant and other six persons. Plaintiffs in order to establish their contention have placed reliance on ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence in the form of construction permission issued by the village panchayat. Defendant could not place on record any documentary evidence to substantiate his contention. Trial court after appreciating evidence placed on record has decreed the suit. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of original defendant in Regular Civil Appeal no. 23/2002. The appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Udgir who was placed to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dt. 7-2-2006. 3 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. The submissions advanced by the appellants are the matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for 3 consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/