1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1738 OF 2005 Hanmant Shamrao Salunke ....Appellant. Versus Vishwanath Shamrao Salunke & others. ....Respondents. Shri. S.N. Boiwar, Advocate holding for Shri. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. S.N. Boiwar Advocate holding for Shri. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate for the appellant. 2. The appellant is original defendant against whom the decree for perpetual injunction was passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umerga in R.C.S.No. 224/1994 decided on 3.8.2004 which came to be decreed and the decree is confirmed in appeal bearing R.C.A.No. 219/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Umerga on 2 10.8.2005. 3. It is the case of the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff that appellant and respondent No. 1 are real brothers and respondent No. 2 is son of step brother of respondent No.1. Their fathers separated in 1944-45 and at about 1970, partition took place amongst them. After the death of father of the appellant and respondent No. 1, Block No. 28/B/3 was allotted to the share of respondent No. 2, Block Nos. 29/C/3 and 30/B's western half portion were allotted to the share of appellant and another share was allotted to respondent No. 1. It is the case of the appellant that considering the fertility of the land 10 R. more land is allotted to him. Then R.C.S.No. 79/2000 was filed by the respondent No. 2 for partition and separate possession and it was compromised and compromise decree was passed. The suit for perpetual injunction is filed on the ground that the appellant and respondent No. 2 were disturbing the possession of respondent No. 1. It is the case of the appellant that he wanted from respondent No. 1 to exchange the property to which respondent No. 1 plaintiff was not ready. 4. Both the trial Court and first appellant Court have concurrently held that the said property is exclusively in possession and belonging to respondent No. 1/plaintiff. There was partition. The plaintiff had developed his property by obtaining loan from Land Development Bank. There are concurrent findings on facts. No question of law arises in this 3 appeal. In this view, the matter cannot be admitted and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. [ P.R. BORKAR ] Judge ssc/sa1738.05