1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2010 Balgir s/o. Gangagir Giri & Anr. ....Appellants. Versus Bhimrao s/o. Sandu Pawar ....Respondent. Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for appellant. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 14th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They filed a suit for mandatory injunction, for removal of the construction of the store house constructed by the Grampanchayat in the open space, which according to the plaintiffs, was being used by Gosavi community. The appellants are the persons belonging to Gosavi community. According to them, said open space was being used by them for the activities of the persons belonging to Gosavi community. 2. Shri. Pawar, learned counsel for appellants contended that the defendant has illegally constructed the said store house and in view of 2 Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, the said store house deserves to be removed. He further submitted that the oral evidence on record is sufficient to show that the said property was being used by Gosavi community since the time immemorial. 3. With the assistance of the learned advocate, I have gone through the judgments of the both Courts below. Both the Courts have observed that there is no documentary evidence to show that the said property was being used by Gosavi community. Even P.W. 4 has not supported the case of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. As such, the second appeal is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/sa489.10