SA. 195-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 195 OF 2011 Shri Santu Maryappa Naralkar ...Appellant Vs. Shri Vishnu Janaba Sawant ...Respondent *** Mr. B. A. Pawar, for the Appellant. Mr. M. R. Suryawanshi, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of the suit property which consists of an open land, in front of his house. The trial court decreed the suit and this decree was confirmed in the appeal. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff has not given proper description of the suit property. He submitted that in the written-statement he had annexed a sketch, showing SA. 195-11 - 2 - the correct description of the suit property. It is submitted that in fact the said land was given by father of the appellant to him, taking into consideration his financial condition. It is submitted that plaintiff entered his name in the Gram Panchayat records illegally and thereafter filed the suit. 3. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the impugned orders passed by the courts below. In my view, no substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below that plaintiff is owner of the suit property and therefore, passed an order of injunction in his favour. Perusal of the plaint clearly shows that the property has been properly described by the plaintiff and it matches the description given by the appellant herein in the sketch which is filed along with the written-statement. The contention of the learned counsel that proper description is not given by the plaintiff, therefore, cannot be accepted. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with concurrent finding of fact while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Second Appeal is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]