1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2007 Dattu Subhana mochwe (deceased through LRs) & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Babasaheb Awadhut Machve & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/6. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th September 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Appellants / original plaintiffs instituted suit claiming decree pf perpetual injunction against defendants in respect of agricultural property 2 situate at village Lokhandi Sawargaon. Defendants have controverted the claim raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. 3 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties recorded finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish the contention raised by him in respect of possession over the disputed property. Suit thus came to be dismissed by the trial court in view of judgment and decree passed on 16-7-1984. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal no. 257/1984 at the instance of plaintiffs. Appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Ambajogai who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment dt. 12-4-2002. 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded finding of fact that plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over disputed property. In this view of the matter, no interference is necessary in exercise of powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa425.07.odt