1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.112 OF 2010 1 Datta s/o Naga Raut, aged: 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, 2 Madhav s/o Naga Raut, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, 3 Sarubai w/o Naga Raut, age: 78 years, Occ: Agriculture; 4 Kamalbai w/o Madhav Raut, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, 5 Jamunabai w/o Madhav Raut, age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o Banchincholi, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. Appellants Versus Archanabai w/o Kishanrao Raut, age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Banchincholi, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. Respondents Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, advocate for appellants. Mr.M.V.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 23 rd February, 2010. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by the Courts below. 2 Respondent-plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against defendants. It is contended that she 2 has purchased the property by securing registered sale deed from original owner on 16.03.2000 and in pursuance to the sale, she has been put in possession over the property. It is further contended that defendants, having no right, title and interest in the property, are trying to interfere in her possession. 3 As against these contentions, defendants contend that the original owner has executed agreement to sell on 02.04.1991 in favour of defendant no.2 and in pursuance to the agreement to sell, they are put in possession. It is further contended by defendants that dead bodies of ancestors of defendants have been buried in suit land, which is indicator of the fact of they having been in possession of the property. 4 The trial Court as well as first appellate Court, on consideration of all relevant aspects, recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff has established her ownership as well as possession over disputed property. 5 I have perused judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. I am of the view that the Courts below have considered the factual aspects involved in the matter in its proper perspective and reasons recorded are logical and proper. No interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa11210