( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2009 Vishwanath s/o Hulaji Harale and another. APPELLANTS VERSUS Shankar s/o Govindrao Khandgave RESPONDENT ..... Mr. A.M. Nagarkar, advocate holding for Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr. Padmakar Deshmukh, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The respondent’s suit (R.C.S. No. 50/2002) for declaration of ownership and injunction came to be decreed. The appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. According to the appellants, they are in possession of the suit land on the basis of agreement of sale dated 02-05-2002. The Courts below found that they are not in possession, ( 2 ) nor the agreement was duly proved. In view of the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the second appeal involves any substantial question of law. The synopsis of the appeal memo shows that non-framing of the issue regarding entry point of 7/12 extract regarding the plaintiff’s commencement of possession was attempted to be agitated as substantial question of law, which is improper. All the questions raised in the appeal memo are in respect of appreciation of evidence. Considering the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, I find that the present appeal is outside the pale of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, it is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, civil application no. 10088/2009 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa938-09 ( 3 )