1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.121/2010 & 235/2010 BHUJANGRAO VITTHALRAO AWARE ..VS.. KAMLABAI BHUJANGRAO AWARE & ORS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 7th June, 2010. Heard Shri Khapre, the learned advocate for the appellant. Since the issues involved in Second Appeal No.121/2010 and Second Appeal NO.235/2010 are almost common, they are heard together at the stage of admission and are decided by this common order. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit involved in the Second Appeal No.121/2010 and is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents in Second Appeal No.235/2010. The suit was filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents in Second Appeal No.121/2010 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit property. The respondents on the other hand had filed a Civil Suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that the appellant had encroached upon the same. The respondents in Second Appeal No.235/2010 had based their claim on the basis of plaint map which was drawn by surveyor. The trial court by separate judgments in the two suits filed by the appellant and the respondents dismissed the suits filed by the 2 present appellant and decreed the suit filed by the present respondent. The trial court held in both the suits that the appellant was not the owner of the suit property and had encroached upon the same, though the suit property belonged to the respondent. In view of the aforesaid findings, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit property. The findings recorded by the trial court in both the suits were upheld by the first appellate court. The first appellate court re- appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeals are therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE SMP 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.121/2010 & 235/2010 BHUJANGRAO VITTHALRAO AWARE ..VS.. KAMLABAI BHUJANGRAO AWARE & ORS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 7th June, 2010. Heard Shri Khapre, the learned advocate for the appellant. Leave to amend prayer clause is granted. Necessary amendment may be carried out forthwith. JUDGE SMP