1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 874 OF 2010 IN REJECTED CASE NO. 378 OF 2009 Ramu (Rama) Bhiku Wadekar ........Applicant versus Barku Bhika Wadekar & anr........Respondents. Mr. V.S. Talkute adv. for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Kapse adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 9th September, 2010. P.C.: 1. This is an application for restoration of the Second Appeal which came to be dismissed in default. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c). Second Appeal is restored to file. (B. R. GAVAI, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 874 OF 2010 IN REJECTED CASE NO. 378 OF 2009 Ramu (Rama) Bhiku Wadekar ........Applicant versus Barku Bhika Wadekar & anr........Respondents. Mr. V.S. Talkute adv. for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Kapse adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 9th September, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajgurunagar, Khed, dated 2-1-1997 thereby partly decreeing the suit filed by the present appellant and dismissing the suit as regards perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing his possession over the suit lands and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune dated 19-1-2001 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendants are real brothers interese and that they had dug a well in the suit land 229. It was the case of the plaintiff that each of the 3 brothers had 1/3rd share in the suit well. According to the plaintiff there was also partition between the brothers in so far as the lands are concerned. It is further the case that all the brothers had agreed to take water from the well on various days out of which Mondays and Tuesdays had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and that the defendants have obstructed the claim of the plaintiff. 4. The learned trial court found that the claim of the plaintiff in so far as the right in the well water is concerned was proved, however negated the contention in so far as the allotment of land block no. 929 and 919 to the share of the plaintiff. The said finding of fact has been confirmed by the learned appellate court. 5. Perusal of both the judgments would reveal that the finding of both the learned courts are based upon appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record. No perversity is noticed in the approach of both the courts below. In any case no question of law, leave aside any substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Hence appeal is dismissed. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)