1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Second Appeal No.197 of 2009. Chandrakumar S/o Vithal Khobragade (dead) though Lts Smt. Bhagirathibai and others. v Smt. Geetabai wd/o Ramaji Humne. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C. F. Bhagwani, Advocate for the appellant. Coram : A.H. Joshi, J. Dated : 19th June, 2009. 1. The operative part of the decree of trial Court is as follows: The defendant or anybody else acting on his behalf are permanently restrained from entering upon the suit premises, described in the schedule to the plaint and obtaining possession thereof from the plaintiff without following the due procedure established by law. [Quoted from page 34 of the appeal paper book] 2. This decree is confirmed by the first appellate Court with a categoric finding namely : 22. It is already made clear that the plaintiff has not surrender her tenancy right. No evidence has been produced by the defendant on record even to accept his case or to deny the legal right of the plaintiff on the suit property. Therefore, if all these facts are taken into 2 consideration then this itself shows that the plaintiff has his legal right over the suit property she is in possession thereof. Therefore, the defendant has no right to cause obstruction in her possession. In the result point no.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. [Quoted from page 16 of the appeal paper book] 3. This finding is based on proved facts, and previous possession of the plaintiff which was admitted by the defendant. 4. In this background, no substantial question of law whatsoever arises in the case. 5. The questions titled as substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal are not arising between the parties. 6. The appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. JUDGE /Muley/