1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. ____________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8517 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 12118 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th September 2009 1 This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 257 days occurred in presenting the second appeal. 2 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 257 days occurred in presenting the second appeal stands condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE dyb/sast12118.05.odt 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. ____________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8518 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 12118 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th September 2009 1 This is an application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1 as well as for condonation of delay of 20 days occurred in filing the application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1. 2 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, application stands allowed. Delay of 20 days occurred in filing the application stands condoned. Legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1 are permitted to be brought on record. Record be amended accordingly. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 12118 OF 2005 Shahaji Shankar Mhase & others Appellants Versus Hari Raghu Shinde ( Deceased through LRs) & others Respondents Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. =====. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal no. 233/1999 decided on 8-7-2004. 2 Plaintiffs claim 3/4 th share in the well water which is situate in land survey no. 85/3. According to plaintiff, he is the owner of land gat no. 85/2 and 85/3. Defendants have entitlement in respect of land gat no. 85/1. In the revenue record in respect of land gat no. 85/1 entry is 4 recorded in respect of share in well water out of the well situate in land gat no. 85/3 which belongs to plaintiff. According to plaintiff, defendant is not entitled to receive well water to the extent of 1/4 th share. 3 Defendants have controverted the contention raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. According to defendants, there is reference in the sale-deed executed by Nathu in favour of one Narayan in the year 1946 in respect of sharing of well water. Defendants claim to be the tenants inducted on behalf of Narayan. According to them, they have entitlement to share well water out of the well situate in land gat no. 85/3. 4 After considering the evidence led by the parties, trial court dismissed the suit. Original plaintiffs raised challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being Regular Civil Appeal no. 233/1991 which came to be allowed and the plaintiffs were declared entitled to have half share in the well water. Trial court although has recorded finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the well water, however, has dismissed the suit. Appellate court, however, considering the findings recorded by the trial court as well as considering the evidence placed on record has declared the plaintiffs entitled to receive 5 half share in the well water. 5 Perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Findings recorded by both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record. Conclusion drawn cannot be said to be arbitrary. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sast12118.05.odt