1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 99/2006 (Vinayakrao Vyankatrao Gaikwad & anr. Vs. Smt. Bhagabai Sahebrao Wayal & ors.) 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 : 16 th JUNE, 2008. Heard Shri Akolkar for the appellants, and Shri S. M. Bhagde for the respondents. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of agricultural land admeasuring 10.57 H.R. and the defendants be restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the same. The plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 are the sisters inter se. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was, initially, owned by one Sadashio Gaikwad and after his death, the suit land came in possession of his son Nathu, by succession. The suit land was auctioned in pursuance of a decree passed in a maintenance case filed by Shivganga w/o Natthu. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs' father by name 2 Vyankatrao purchased the suit property in a court auction on 5/3/1966. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the sale effected in favour of plaintiffs' father in auction on 5/3/1966, was set aside by the Civil Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs' father against the judgment passed by the District Judge was also dismissed by the High Court. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had filed a false suit against the defendants to harass them, and they prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs did not prove their absolute ownerships over the suit land. The Court further recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs did not succeed in proving that the defendants had obstructed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The first appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court. The Courts, while holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit land, relied on the judgment passed by the High Court in 3 Second Appeal No. 72/76. Both the Courts, therefore, held that the plaintiffs had 2/5th share in the suit property and were not the absolute owners thereof. Since the second issue about the alleged obstruction to the plaintiffs' peaceful possession was answered against the plaintiffs, both the Courts rightly refused to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The substantial question of law stated in the memorandum of appeal do not arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP