:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL SECOND APPEAL SECOND APPEAL NO.211 OF 2008 NO.211 OF 2008 NO.211 OF 2008 Shri Malhari Guruling Mane & Ors. ...Appellants. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.K.B.Sonwalkar , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.S.N.Gawade, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 7th July, 2008. DATE: 7th July, 2008. DATE: 7th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the judgments rendered by the Courts below. The appellants before this Court are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.506 of 1993 filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara. Each of them is owner of the house bearing City Survey Number. The dispute is pertaining to the open land bearing city survey no.62. According to the plaintiffs, this property City Survey No.62 belongs to them and they have been using the same for the purpose of keeping their articles. As there was threat of dispossession from the defendants/respondents, they filed suit for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from causing any interference in the property. According to the defendants/respondents, City Survey No.62 is not a private property but it belongs to the Government and it :2: has been so recorded in the city survey record since 1975. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on two grounds, firstly, the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to prove their ownership and secondly, the suit was not for declaration of title but for injunction only. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.254 of 2001. That appeal also came to be dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-4, Satara by the judgment dated 21st June, 2007. The appellate Court also came to conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove title over the suit property bearing City Survey No.62. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal. 2. Admittedly in 1975, the city survey of the area was conducted and the property bearing city survey no.62 was recorded as the Government property. Nobody had ever taken objection to that entry. The houses and the properties of the plaintiffs were given separate survey numbers about which there is no dispute. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction for the first time in 1993 when the Government wanted to remove the encroachment on the city survey no.62. Except oral contention of the plaintiffs that the entry taken at the time of city survey is not correct and that the open plot belongs to them, there is no other evidence. They could not produce any document in support of their claim over the :3: suit property. There is concurrent finding of the facts of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit property. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 3. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)