IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2003. Bhausaheb Sakharam Pagare & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Appellants V/s Hiraman Dhondiram Pagare & Ors. ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.A.G.Toraskar, Adv. For the appellants. Ms.Smit Gaidhani, Adv. For respondent Nos. 1A to 1F. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 16th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Toraskar and Ms.Smita Gaidhani for the appellants and respondents respectively. The appellants are the original defendant Nos.1 to 7 and respondents 1 and 2 are original plaintiffs. The suit was filed for declaration, partition and injunction. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted declaration in favour of respondents-plaintiffs in respect of land being Gat No.1447 and suit house No.762 to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners of one half share and accordingly decree of recovery of possession is also granted. This decree was challenged by filing an appeal before lower appellate court. The appeal was also dismissed. The appellants-defendants 1 to 7 do not 1 dispute that one Parshu has ½ share in the property gat No.1447 and house No.762. However his contention is that the respondents- plaintiffs have nothing to do with said Parshu and they are not his decendants. Both the lower courts below accepted the respondents- plaintiffs' case that they are successors-in-title of said Parshu. The findings of fact are recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. The appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved. Hence second appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. In view of disposal of second appeal civil application No.471/03 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 16.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2