1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2008 Smt. Laxmibai d/o. Ganpati Mali ...Appellant Versus Shri Shantinath Aappa Gondhali ...Respondent Mr. Amit Sale, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 14th July, 2008. DATE: 14th July, 2008. DATE: 14th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who is the original plaintiff. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff had sold the land bearing CTS No.703 to the defendant/respondent under a registered sale deed dated 25.6.1992. Adjoining this property, another property bearing City Survey No.702 belongs to and is in possession of the plaintiff. The defendant began construction on the plot bearing City Survey No.703 and for the purpose of roof of that house, 2 he put beams and the tiles with the help of the said wall which, according to the defendant, is a common wall. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that the said wall is her exclusive property and the defendant has no right to make use of the same. With this contention, she filed the suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.234/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur, wherein she sought perpetual injunction against the defendant. According to the defendant, the disputed wall is a common wall even as per the sale deed executed by the plaintiff. 3. After hearing the parties, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in possession of the plaintiff over the plot CTS no.702. However, the prayer for mandatory injunction for the purpose of removing wooden beams and roof tiles from the wall by the defendant came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 2005 in the District Court, Jaysingpur. That appeal came to be dismissed on 12.6.2007. Therefore, the plaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal. 4. The dispute is restricted to the wall which, according to the plaintiff, is not common and the 3 defendant has no right to make use of the same for the purpose of construction of roof of his house. Both the Courts below referred to the contents of the sale deed and came to the conclusion that in the sale deed itself it is clearly mentioned that the wall would be common between the parties. This is the concurrent finding of fact given by both the Courts below and it is supported by the contents of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. No question of law is involved in the matter. 5. Therefore, the Second Appeal stands dismissed summarily. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)