1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2008 Shri Dnyandeo Tatyaba Katkar & Ors. ....Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) Vs. Shri Ramchandra Mahadeo Katkar. ....Respondent (Orig. Defendant) Mr. Y.S.Mhaispurkar, Advocate i/b. Ms.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 20th August, 2008. DATE : 20th August, 2008. DATE : 20th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs who claim right of way from the open land to approach the public road. According to them, the 2 defendant was trying to make construction on that open land and therefore they sought injunction. It appears that the trial Court could not come to conclusion as to whether the disputed land,through which the right of way is claimed by the plaintiffs, belongs to the defendant or not and, in the result, the trial Court directed the defendant not to make any construction in the said open space adjacent to the suit properties till establishing his right in respect of this portion of land the Grampanchayat and the City Survey Authority. From this, it appears that the trial Court directed the defendant to prove his title over the disputed portion of the land before the Gram Panchayat or the City Survey Authority. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.153 of 2001. That Appeal was allowed. The appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had alternative way to approach the public road. The appellate Court also noted that the disputed property belongs to the defendant and the plaintiffs had not pleaded nor proved that they had right of way byeasement by prescription. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter the original plaintiff has filed the Second Appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has taken 3 me through the Judgments of both the Courts below as well as the pleadings and the oral evidence of the son of the defendant. 4. On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs haveconveniently kept silent and havenot pleaded specifically as whom the property in dispute belongs. Admittedly, it does not belong to him. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they had right of way by easement by prescription for 20 years or more prior to the filing of the suit nor they had claimed that there was any public passage which they wanted to use. In view of the nature of the pleadings and the specific findings given by the learned appellate Court, I find no substantial question of law involved in the present matter. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed summarily. 6. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. No.1040 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)