1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2008 Harishchandra N. Mate ........Appellant versus Municipal Corporation of City of Pune, & anr....... Respondents. Mr. Sanjeev J. Rairkar i/b N.C. Walimbe for the Appellant. Mr. M.T. Pise for the Respondent no.2. CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 06th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Raikar the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pise for the respondent no.2. The appellant is the original Plaintiff. His suit for temporary injunction and mandatory injuction restraining the respondent Gram Panchayat from laying down any pipe line and doing any construction of road work was dismissed by the trial court. The lower appellate court also dismissed the appellant' s appeal by the impugned judgment and order. 2. The suit property is CTS no.385. In order to prove title over this property, the appellant/plaintiff relied upon three sale deeds namely sale deed dated 7-1-1937, 9-3-1953 and 5-2- 1990. By the first sale deed, one Mr. Ganpat Jori transferred 2 survey no.384 and 386 in favour of one Ather Shofer. This very property was transferred by said Shofer in favour of one Harishchandra Mate by the second deed executed in the year 1953 and by the third sale deed of 1990 Mate transferred the very same property to Appellant/Plaintiff. 3. Both the courts below after going through the evidence and after interpreting the sale deeds concluded that the appellant in order to prove his title to the suit property CTS No.385, cannot relied upon those sale deeds. Be that as it may, the appellate court also observed in para 15 of the impugned judgment and order that the appellant admitted ownership of government and thereafter of village panchayat to the chaltha no.203 corresponding to the suit property. 4. Mr. Raikar the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gram panchayat alsio filed suit for declaration which was decreed by the trial court. However the lower appellate court reversed the finding and ultimately the suit filed by Gram Panchayat is also dismissed. He submits that in view of the dismissal of the Gram panchayat's suit the present appeal deserves consideration, in as much as the Gram panchayat also could not prove its title of the suit property. I do not see any merit in the submission as the appellant/ original plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own evidence. Since the appellant failed to prove title to the suit property I do not find any merit in the aforesaid 3 second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. ( R.V. MORE, J.)