1 S.A. 128.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 128 OF 2010 Mohd. Naushad S/o Alisher Qureshi .. APPELLANT VERSUS The Municipal Council, Naldurg through its Chief Officer, & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.S. Choudhari & R.S. Patil, Advocates for the appellant Shri S.N. Patne, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : The appellant is the original plaintiff, who had initially filed suit for injunction, after he was dispossessed, amended it and claimed for possession. The Trial Court, dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Choudhari, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has proved 2 S.A. 128.10 the sale-deed on record, by virtue of which he became owner of the suit property which is part of the Survey No. 380, even the plaintiff was running a grocery shop in the suit premises. But he was forcefully dispossessed. Even if it is assumed that the said land was reserved for particular purpose, it can not effect the ownership rights of the appellant. According to learned Counsel, the Courts below have not properly considered the evidence brought on record. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The Courts below have observed that the sale-deed, as is required under law, is not proved. The Courts have also held that the description of the property is ambiguous. It is not disputed that road passes through survey No. 30. In that view of the matter, when the suit property is not properly described, so also the sale-deed is not proved. The Courts have properly decided the matter, even the rights of the plaintiffs have been 3 S.A. 128.10 safeguarded by the Courts below, wherein it has been observed by the Trial Court as under :- “ As such, by taking resort to the provisions laid down under Section 89 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, the plaintiff is at liberty to get decided his rights, if any, in respect of the suit site by agitating the same before the proper forum i.e. Collector. As such, in my humble opinion, the suit in the present from is not at all maintainable.” 4. In that light of the matter, no substantial question of law arises, as such the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and same is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 128.10SA/241110