1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2008 Latabai Ramesh Kad Vs. Narmadabai wd/o Vitthalrao Hatolkar & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri Kavimandan Adv for appellant. Shri S. D. Chande Adv for respondent no.2. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 1 st MARCH, 2011. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2003 by which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be confirmed. Appellant herein is the original defendant who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 252 of 2001 for possession. Plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the property from one Vitthalrao Hatolkar. The said Vitthalrao had acquired title to the property by virtue of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1999 and the said decree was passed accepting the 2 claim of the said Vitthalrao of adverse possession. The property in respect of which the decree came to be passed was on the north of the plot of the property of one Shantikumar Walke. The plaintiffs had filed the suit describing the property as plot no. 6 in the plaint. Defendant i.e. appellant above named resisted the said suit by contending that property claimed by the plaintiff is plot No. 7 and the plaintiff could never have claimed plot no.6. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record and especially the evidence adduced by the parties in support of the description of the property in plaint held that the plot sold by Vitthalrao was the one in his possession and which was the subject matter of the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1999. Trial Court therefore decreed the suit and directed the defendants to handover the possession of the plot in question. Aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2003. The said Regular Civil Appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court in decreeing the suit were confirmed. First Appellate Court also recorded a finding that the property in question which was described in the plaint could be proved by relying upon other evidence. Both the Courts below have therefore concurrently held that what was sold to the plaintiffs was the property which was in possession of Vitthalrao and which was subject matter of decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1999 which is the property to the north of property of one Shantikumar 3 Walke. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in my view no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6