1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1036 OF 2010 IN SA/410/2010 Shri Rangnath Chitmaji Gajare, ..Appellant. Vs. 1.Smt Janakabai Dagu Shinde and ors ..Respondents. Mr.M.S.Karnik, for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 13/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs have one-half share in the well water and the trees in the land Gat No.154 at village Gajarwadi. The plaintiffs also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from obstructing use and enjoyment of the well water on weekly rotation basis. Both the courts, after having considered oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after taking into consideration the inquiry report submitted to the Tahasildar and the Court Commissioner's T 2 report, have held that the plaintiffs have one-half share in the suit properties. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the fact that the land, being Gat No.154, where the suit well is situated, exclusively belongs to the defendant, the courts below have erred in holding that the plaintiffs have share in the suit properties. In my opinion, as has been rightly held by the courts below, merely because the land Gat no.154 exclusively belongs to the appellant, does not mean that the plaintiffs have no right in the well water. The evidence on record shows that the plaintiffs also have right to fetch water from the suit well. For the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments, in my opinion, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and as I find that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either involved or raised in this appeal, it deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. The civil application also stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) 3