1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 48/2010 (Gaurishankar Narayan Shende VERSUS Pandurang Sahadeorao Bilaimare) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.A. Gupte, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajkondawar, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and for damages. According to the plaintiff, the sale-deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 was void and not binding on the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that on 01.08.1998, a sale-deed was executed by the defendant no.2, who had chalked out a layout in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that when he purchased the property on 01.08.1998, there was a 20 feet road on the western boundary of the plaintiffs plot and a 20 feet road on the southern boundary of the plaintiff’s plot. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.2, however, later on, without the knowledge of the 2 plaintiff, converted the 20 feet road on the southern side of the plaintiff’s property into plots and sold the plot on the southern side of the plaintiff’s boundary to the defendant no.1-respondent no.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the plot on 01.08.1998 as there was road on the western and southern boundary of the plot purchased by the plaintiff and since the road on the southern side was converted into plots and the plots were sold to the defendant no.1, great loss was caused to the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the same. The defendant nos.1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff. According to the defendant no.2 initially he had prepared a kachcha layout and the sale-deeds were executed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 when a kachcha layout was prepared. According to the defendant no.2, after getting the N.A. Sanction in the year 2001, a new layout was prepared and plot nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 were shown towards the southern side of the plaintiff’s plot. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had a right of way on 20 feet width road towards the southern side on plot no.109 which was purchased by him. 3 The Courts held that the plaintiffs had been unsuccessful in proving that the sale of plot on the southern side of the plaintiff’s house to defendant no.1 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The Courts held that the defendant no.1 did not make any unauthorized construction. The Courts refused to grant any declaration as sought by the plaintiff and also held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered damages to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE