1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.226 OF 2010 YAMUNABAI FANDA PARDHI AND OTHERS ..VS.. HEMRAJ GYANIRAM PATEL & ORS 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 : 9 th JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri Bisen, the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that they were the owners of certain property shown in the plaint map in black ink and the property shown in blue ink was Abadi Land, but was in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants did not have any right in respect of the same. The plaintiffs further sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs over the property shown in red and blue ink in the plaint map. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were trying to take forcible possession of the suit land by unauthorizedly measuring gut no.275 which belonged to the plaintiffs and gut no.276 which belonged to the defendants. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It was admitted by the defendants that the plaintiffs were the owners of gut no.275 and they were the owners of gut no.276. But they denied the plaint map in its totality. It was denied by the defendants that they were interested to purchase the Abadi Land which was in possession of the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs failed to sell the same to the defendants, they tried to obstruct the possession of the plaintiffs over 2 that property. The defendants also filed a map and also filed a counter claim seeking a declaration that they had ownership and possession over certain property and the plaintiffs be restrained from disturbing their possession. Both the courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they owned and possessed the suit property shown in the plaint map. The courts held that the plaintiffs also did not prove that the defendants had dug a pit in their land for starting a Gobar Gas Plant. The courts held that the defendants proved their ownership the gut no.276 and had admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs over the gut no.275. The courts then held that the defendants also failed to prove that plaintiffs had obstructed their possession over the property which was a subject matter of the counter claim. Consequently, both the courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and also counter claim filed by the defendants. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record, and 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.