1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2010 Ramkishan s/o Tulsiram Khabale .. APPELLANT VERSUS Mahadeo s/o Lahanu Bodkhe .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th January, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. Plaintiff instituted suit claiming his entitlement in respect of 1/3 rd share in the water in a suit well situate in block no. 318 at village Kharadgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. Plaintiff bases his claim on agreement alleged to have been ex3ecuted by defendant in his favour admitting his entitlement in respect of receiving 1/3 rd water in a well situate in disputed land. Plaintiff led his evidence before the trial court, however, defendant did not step into witness box nor led any evidence to substantiate his defence. Trial court thus 2 decreed the suit by judgment and decree dt. 10-4-2006. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed by the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal no. 159/2006 on 29-9-2008. 2 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Plaintiff has proved his case by leading oral evidence of himself and witnesses examined on his behalf. Plaintiff has also proved the agreement in question holding him entitled to receive water out of the well. Defendant has not lead any evidence to substantiate his defence. Defendant has raised objection to the admissibility of the document exh. 51 on the ground that the same needs to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of Registration Act. It is contended that by virtue of execution of the document interest in immovable property is created in favour of the plaintiff and as such the document needs registration. By execution of the document interest is created in favour of the plaintiff in respect of drawing water from the well and no interest in respect of entitlement to immovable property is created and as such the document is not compulsorily registered one. The courts below have taken proper view of the matter and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that the defence raised by the defendant for opposing the claim raised by the plaintiff is not 3 established by him by leading any evidence on his behalf. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff which has been confirmed by the first appellate court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa26.10.odt