1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 475/2009. Tryambakrao Harbaji Chinchilkar (dead) by L.Rs. -VERSUS- Shri Kewalram Digamber Motghare and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2011. Heard Shri M.S. Gupta, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri B.B. Mehadia, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6. Contention of plaintiff/appellant is, concurrent judgments delivered are perverse in as much as the area mentioned in the sale deed ought to have been preferred without going to the agreement for sale. During hearing this Court has gathered that there is no explanation on record as to why the 2 area was shown more in the agreement. Similarly, though the appellant/plaintiff contends that after sale- deed he has continued in possession of 0.65A of land, except for his oral evidence and revenue records, there is no other evidence to demonstrate actual physical cultivation. His story that after about four years of sale deed, the entry or way to that field was obstructed, does not find mention before the trial Court and there is no issue framed in this respect. Non framing of this issue was never questioned. In view of the concurrent findings recorded, the same cannot be viewed as perverse. No substantial questions of law therefore, arise for determination in this Second Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd