: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1308 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2008 Suresh Mali ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Carolyn Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondent. Mr.Vyankatesh Dhond with Mr.Rohaan Cama with Mr.Mahesh Landhe i/b.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Appellant. Ms.Vaijayanti Kalekar for Respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : An attempt at gaining an access through the entire property of the Plaintiff society, appears to be with an oblique motive. 2. Firstly, there is nothing on record which even remotely establishes any easmentary right, as alleged by the Appellant. The photographs which are admitted, clearly indicate that the wall of the society compound was broken. It certainly does not indicate any intention to create an access in favour of the Appellant. If indeed, an access/gap has been deliberately made, recognising the alleged access, : 2 : it would have been reflected in some record or the other. 3. From the record of the Commissioner, appointed by the trial Court, it appears that the Appellant has an alternative access. The Appellant does not indicate whether the alternative access was available at any stage and that the same has been rightly or wrongly denied now. Thus, there is not even equity in favour of the Appellant. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation by the Respondent that the access is sought with an oblique motive, appears to be well founded. The allegation is that what the Appellant actually intends doing is selling the property to a developer to develope the same and to gain the access for the construction material and the vehicles to carry the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant refused to make a statement that there has never been an intention to sell the property to any third party or to create any development rights in favour of third parties. Nor does he make a statement whether any such third party rights are : 3 : created or being negotiated presently. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant is not even present in Court and the instructions are given by persons stated to be his friends. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order warrants no interference. 8. Appeal from Order is dismissed. Nothing survives in the Civil Application, which is also dismissed as such. ***