1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.109 OF 2010 Gopal S/o Sitaram Gaike. ... Appellant. Versus Shankar S/o Dama Gaike & Anr.... Respondents. -------- Shri. Amit Shrikant Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. R.K. Ashtekar and Shri. N.K. Bandale, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 and 2. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 15th FEBRUARY 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2) This is an appeal by the original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent findings recoded by the Courts below. 2 3) The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming possession and mense profit against the defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.147 of 2006 decided on 10-7-2009. Both the Courts below have recorded finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title in relation to the suit property. Apart from these aspects, on perusal of the judgments of the Courts below it transpires that the scheme of consolidation was implemented in the village in the year 1974 and the change that was effected in 1974 has not been questioned by the plaintiff till the year 2005. Even otherwise also no case is made out to reach to conclusion that the property in question in fact belongs exclusively to the family of the plaintiff and the defendants have no right, 3 title and entitlement in relation to the suit property. The questions raised in the appeal are essentially the matter relating to appreciation of facts. No substantial question arises for consideration of this appeal. 4) The second appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl/ sa.109.10