1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 821 OF 2007 Pratap Balwantrao Rane........Appellant versus Ravindra Gangaram Parkar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar adv. for the Appellant Mr. Sachin Shetye adv. for the respondents 1 to 8 CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 17th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Khandeparkar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shetye for the respondent. The appellant is the original plaintif and the responents are original defendants. The appellant filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and alternatively for possession of the suit property. There are three suit properties namely Survey nos. 10/13, 11/3 & 5 and 11/4. The trial court granted injunction in favour of he appellant in respect of Survey no. 11/3 & 5 and house propertie standing on Survey No. 11/4. The injunction in respectr of Survey no. 10/13 and 11/4, excluding house properties, was not granted on the ground that the tenancy court declared the respondents to be 2 tenant these land. This finding of the trial court is confirmed by the lower appellate court in an appeal filed by the present appellant. I am not inclined to interfere in the second appeal in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the lower courts below after appreciation of evidence, about the respondent's possession in survey no. 10/13 and survey no. 11/4 excluding the house properties. Appreciation cannot be said to be perverse. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)