1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.192/2010 Santoshrao Punjabrao Patil ..vs.. State of Mah =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 7 th June, 2010. Heard Shri P.S. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Shri V.G. Wankhede, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 & 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had further sought a permanent injunction restraining the original defendant no.2 to 4 from making construction over the suit property or using the suit property. The plaintiff sought the possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was theancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 to 4 had illegally constructed a flat on the same. The defendants no. 2 to 4 filed their written 2 statement and pleaded that the property belonged to the government and the government had allotted the suit property to the defendants no.2 to 4. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit property was the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The trial court held that the suit property belonged to the government. In such circumstances the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment passed by the trial court was also dismissed and the findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the first appellate court on a re- appreciation of the evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on the proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP