1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.604 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.894 OF 2006 Shri Dattu Akaram Kulkarni .... Appellants & Anr. Vs. Shri Shankar Appa Chougule .... Respondents & Anr. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Siddharth h/f Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 20th November, 2009 P.C. 1. This Second Appeal challenges correctness and legality of the order dated 22nd March 2006, by which the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree delivered in Regular Civil Suit No.258 of 1988 passed by the trial Court confirmed. The appellants are original defendants no.1 and 2. Respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and respondent no.2 is the original defendant no.3. 2. Respondent no.1 filed the suit herein for injunction simplicitor to restrain the appellants interalia from disturbing their possession over the suit property. The appellants disputed that respondent no.1 is in possession of the suit property and claimed that they are the owners and in actual possession of the 2 property by virtue of the sale-deed executed in their favour by one Babgonda Patil and his brother in respect of Gram Panchayat property No.270 and 272. The trial Court accepted the case of respondent no.1 and disbelieved the claim made by the appellants and decreed the suit. By its judgment and decree dated 21st October 1995, the appellants have been permanently restrained from disturbing possession of respondent no.1 over the suit property. The appeal Court considered the rival contentions and confirmed the finding of fact of the trial Court that the appellants are not in possession of the suit property and that the possession is with respondent no.1. 3. I have perused both the judgments carefully. It is seen that the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below is fair and reasonable and the same is not required to be interfered with. There is no question of law arising for consideration of this Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.894 of 2006 does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)