1 SA 590.2006 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2006 _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. R.V.Gore, Advocate for respondent. ........................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for injunction restraining the defendant from making obstruction in peaceful possession of plaintiff over Gram Panchayat House No. 249 (Old) situated at village Aurala. The Trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendant preferred Appeal. The appellate Court allowed the Appeal and dismissed Suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the 2 SA 590.2006 plaintiff has produced on record the unregistered sale deed, which shows the dimension of his property and the plaintiff is claiming injunction to that extent only. In fact, it is the burden upon the defendant, who alleges the extent of lane, to prove the factum of lane. The defendant has not led any evidence in this regard. The learned counsel further contended that the house of the defendant is on higher level than that of the plaintiff and as such ought have been held that the house of the plaintiff extends till the house of the defendant. 4. Per contra, Mr. Gore, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff has no ownership rights over the suit property. He can not claim any title on the basis of an unregistered instrument. The learned counsel further contends that the extent of lane is proved as it is admitted that it is an open space and the plaintiff and his witness nowhere denied in their deposition about the extent of lane. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. It is a fact that the plaintiff does not have document of title. He is claiming on the basis of unregistered agreement of sale, which would not bestow any title upon him. More over, by independent evidence, the plaintiff is required to establish that the property which he claims to 3 SA 590.2006 be the owner and occupier, extends up to the house of the defendant. No measurement is on record. In absence of the same, the dimensions can not be ascertained. The lower appellate Court has considered the evidence on record and has arrived at plausible conclusion. There is no perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. 7. In light of the above, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 590.2006