1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.440 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6422 OF 2009. Sau. Vijaya Balasaheb Khadalkar ... Appellant. Versus Krushnaji Chandresen Ghodake and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. She filed suit for injunction claiming that there is a way on northern side of the suit land of 2 which user was obstructed by the Respondents (defendants). While the suit was pending, the appellant also filed an application U/s 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seeking way from over boundaries of the lands. It appears that the Tahsildar granted the request and held that such way could be created. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the findings of the Revenue Authority. The first appellate Court, however, reversed such findings and held that the existence of the northern way was not proved by the appellant (plaintiff). 3. Now it may be gathered that the order of the learned Tahsildar could not be the foundation available to the learned Judge of the trial Court to decide the suit in favour of the appellant. The appellant was required to plead and prove as to how the suit way was being used as of a right. The creation of easement must be properly pleaded and proved. 4. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court referred to "Jaglal Premlal 3 Jayaswal Vs. Waman Shyamraoji Dhobale" 2008 (4) Mh.L.J.467. This Court held that the provisions of Section 143, sub-clause (5) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, indicate that the legislature has taken precaution to see that no inconsistent orders came into force and once a decision of Tahsildar is challenged in the Civil Suit, further challenge to such order before the revenue authorities is expressly prohibited. 5. It is pertinent to note that the appeal preferred by the respondent was disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the Civil suit was pending. The first appellate Court duly considered cross-examination of the appellant. The appellant admitted that on northern side of his land a foot-way is created by the people. The appellant failed to prove that the predecessor-in-title was using the disputed way as a matter of right. In view of findings of facts rendered by the first appellate Court, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. Consequently, the appeal is outside the scope of 4 Section 100 of the C.P.C. and as such is dismissed. C.A. disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa44009