1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 363/2008 (Ajay Arjun Ingle Vs. Venkatesh Narayan Pande) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 12 th SEPTEMBER, 2008. Heard Shri H.P. Lingayat for the appellant, and Mrs. M.N. Hiwase for the sole respondent. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his ownership and for perpetual injunction against the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed a pursis at Exh. 72 stating therein that he did not want the Court to adjudicate the issue of his ownership. The trial Court, therefore, did not decide the issue of ownership of the plaintiff and the issue of ownership was, therefore, deleted. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving his possession over the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction was, therefore, dismissed. In an appeal filed by the 2 plaintiff, the first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court to hold that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused both the judgments. Both the Courts have, on an appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving his possession over the suit property. The finding in this regard is a pure finding of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Since the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit property, the Courts rightly rejected his prayer for grant of perpetual injunction. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP