1 S.A.No.339/10. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.339 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.05.2011. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff who had filed suit for declaration and injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr.Bhapkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact, the Respondent in his evidence has admitted the ownership of the 2 S.A.No.339/10. plaintiff over 5 acres of land Gat No.293-A. In such circumstances, it was erroneous on the part of the Courts below to refuse the decree of declaration of ownership. The trial Court on the ground that plaintiff has not produced the sale deeds has negatived the said relief which is erroneous. Even according to the learned counsel when the possession over 5 acres of land is also not disputed then the plaintiff is entitled for injunction so as to protect his possession. 4. Per contra, Mr.Tele, learned counsel for the Respondents supports the judgment and states that both the Courts concurrently have negatived the relief in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is manifest that the defendant unambiguously admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over 5 acres of the land of Gat No.293- A. Even the defendant owns adjoining 8 acres of the land of Gat No.293/1. There is no dispute in that regard. Even it does not appear that the defendants have disputed the possession of the plaintiff over his 5 acres of land in Gat No.293- 3 S.A.No.339/10. A. The lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendants had obstructed her operation of field and has negatived the relief of injunction on that ground. 6. The plaintiff would be entitled to claim relief of injunction against the defendants only if the plaintiff proves obstruction at the hand of the defendants. When the obstruction is not at all proved then in such circumstances, the lower appellate Court was right in negativing the said relief. Even the defendants have not disputed the title of the plaintiff over 5 acres of land of Gat No.293-A. In such circumstances it could not be said that there was cloud over the title of the plaintiff. The District Court in para 12 of its judgment has observed this fact. 7. In light of above, no error seems to have been committed by the Courts below while dismissing the appeal. As such the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is 4 S.A.No.339/10. dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.04.05.2011. asp/office/sa339.10