( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4892 OF 2005 Pratapsingh Shankarsingh Pardeshi .. Appellant Versus Kashinath Digambar Harba and Ors. .. Respondents Shri P.D. Bachate h/f. Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri P.D. Bachate h/f. Adv. Shri D.S. Bagul for the appellant. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.659 of 1994 against present respondents/defendants for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed so far as property 1-B is concerned, by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, ( 2 ) Senior Division, Ahmednagar, by judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1997. The appeal filed against the same by the original plaintiff was dismissed by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, by judgment and order dated 21.04.2004. 2. One Vyankoji was the original owner of the property. He mortgaged the property to one Govind Tamboli in 1917. Thereafter, in about 1964 Govind sub-mortgaged the property to the plaintiff. The mortgage was foreclosed by decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.518 of 1970. The defendant claimed that they have purchased the property from Govind by sale deed dated 11.07.1975. The sale deed is produced on record. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have considered entire evidence on record. They have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his title & possession over the property 1-B. The possession of the defendants over the property 1-B was held to be legal and referable to the sale-deed obtained by them. As observed in para 13 of the Appellate Court’s judgment that after demise of Govind, his legal representatives filed Regular Civil Suit No.518 of 1970 for foreclosure and same came to be decreed ( 3 ) and subsequently original mortgagee Govind was declared as absolute owner of the suit property. Govind sold 1/4 property to Ganpat and 2/3 property was sold to present respondents/defendants. Considering these findings and evidence discussed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in my opinion, no interference can be made with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First appellate Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. 3. In view of dismissal of this Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 4892 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa758.05