1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2003 Mohmmad Fakroddin s/o Mohd. Amiroddin Quazi .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Committee, Kosmeth, & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22nd July, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri G.N. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2 Appellant / original plaintiff is raising exception to the judgment and order passed by the II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded on 19-12-2002 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 178/99. 3 Appellant / original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 61/97 claiming declaration of ownership and decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the house properties bearing Gram Panchayat nos. 183 and 184 situate at village Kosmeth, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. Plaintiff has not clearly 2 given the boundaries of the properties as well as dimensions in the plaint. It transpires that house property bearing Gram Panchayat no. 183 is owned and possessed by one Ruksana Begam. Plaintiff could not establish his ownership in respect of property bearing no. 183. So far as property bearing no. 184 is concerned, plaintiff has claimed his entitlement to possess the open space adjoining the said residential property. However, plaintiff has not lead any evidence to demonstrate his possession and ownership in respect of the open space which is adjacent to his house property bearing no. 184. On the contrary, the Village Panchayat has demonstrated that the open space infact is a part and parcel of the property in possession of the school which is adjacent to the residential premises of the appellant / original plaintiff bearing no. 184. 4 Trial court has recorded finding while dealing with issue no. 1 that the plaintiff has failed to establish his ownership and possession in respect of the open space. However, trial court has granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. Appellate court has corrected the mistake and directed dismissal of the suit. 5 I have perused both the judgments passed by the courts below. I do not find that the appellate court has committed any error in dismissing the suit presented by plaintiff at appellate stage. Arguments advanced by the appellant are issues which relate to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa201.03.odt