1 37-sa116-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.116 OF 2011 Balkrishan Rambhau Patole & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Bhausaheb Laxman Pawar & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Ms. Tejaswini Kadam i/b. Mr. R. S. Kate for the appellants. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants in a suit filed by the respondents. A decree of declaration has been passed holding that the respondents have prescriptive easmentary right to take water through disputed field channel more particularly described in Clause 2 of the operative part of the decree of the trial Court. Consequential relief of perpetual injunction was granted against the appellant. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that there is evidence on record to show that the respondents did not use the water passing through the channel and from the year 1952, in fact they were irrigating their lands by 2 37-sa116-11 using the water from the well. 3. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the respondents were irrigating their land bearing Gat No.124 from the water in the channel in question for a period of 50 years. Apart from the oral evidence, the said finding is based on appreciation of documentary evidence on record. No interference is called for in the concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law is arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)