1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 83/2002 ( Madhukar Kisanrao Sakharkar VERSUS Nagpur Improvement Trust, through its Chairman, Civil Lines, Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 9 th July, 2007 . The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Nagpur Improvement Trust seeking a permanent injunction restraining the trust from demolishing the construction on the suit plot and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased a plot bearing Khasra no.8/1, City Survey no.730 of village Harpur by registered sale-deed dated 16.01.1990. He pleaded that he was in possession of the suit house till filing of the suit and was paying the municipal taxes thereof. The plaintiff thereafter received notice dated 26.04.1991 from the Nagpur Improvement Trust directing the plaintiff to remove the construction over the plot within three days from the receipt of notice. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking the aforesaid relief. 2 The trial as well as the appellate Court held that the plaintiff established his ownership over the suit plot no.8/1 at Mouza Harpur. The notice dated 26.04.1991 which was a subject matter of the civil suit, however, did not pertain to plot no.8/1 of Mouza Harpur. The Courts held that the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence in respect of title and ownership over the property described in the notice dated 26.04.1991. According to both the Courts, the plaintiff was the owner of some other property whereas the property mentioned in the notice dated 26.04.1991 was yet another property. Consequently, both the Courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought by him. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on the evidence tendered by the plaintiff in respect of his title over the plot at Khasra no.8/1 as also the notice issued by the defendant on 26.04.1991 which did not incorporate the aforesaid plot number. The Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek permanent injunction as claimed by him as he had not proved his title to the property which was mentioned in the notice dated 26.04.1991. The findings recorded by both the Courts are 3 pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE