1 36-841-07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj SECOND APPEAL NO.841 OF 2007 Shankar P. Kadam & Anr., .. Appellants V/s. Maruti G. Ithape & Ors., .. Respondents. Mr. V.S. Talkute, for Appellants. CORAM:- B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED:- 16th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 By way of present appeal, Appellants challenge the concurrent orders passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Satara passed in Regular Civil Suit No.127 of 1987 dated 30 th April, 1997 thereby decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.329 of 1997 dated 18 th July, 2007 thereby dismissing the appeal. 2 36-841-07.sxw 2 Shri Talkute, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the learned trial court as well as appellate court have failed in coming to the conclusion that the suit well is not exclusively owned by the Plaintiff. He submits that on the basis of the evidence lead, the courts below ought to have considered that the Defendants have no right to take water from the well in question. 3 The Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that they had right to take water from the well as per rotation turn and declaration that the suit well is jointly owned and is in joint possession of the Plaintiff and Defendant and for order of injunction restraining the Defendants from obstructing the Plaintiffs from taking water as per their turn. On the basis of evidence lead, the suit is decreed and Appeal preferred there against is also dismissed. 4 The learned courts below arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiffs so also the Defendant had a right to take water from the well and has relied on the 3 36-841-07.sxw order passed in RCS No.1535/36 wherein in para 16, the learned court had to referred the repairs and deepening of the well in which an amount of Rs.2500/- was contributed by the Plaintiff as well as Defendant. In view of the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings between same parties, no error could be noticed in the order passed by the courts below warranting any interference. 5 In any case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 6 Hence, Appeal dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J.)