(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2009 Sardar Dharamsingh s/o. Sardar Gulabsingh Artiya, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, .. Appellant R/o. Lohar Galli, (Original (Old Mondha), Nanded. plaintiff) versus 1. Shastrinagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Near (Bafna Motors), Bhagatsing Road, Nanded, through its Chairman, Topandas s/o. Tarachand Sherwani, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service in M.T.D.C., Nanded, R/o. Shastrinagar, Nanded. 2. Lokchand s/o. Udaram Chandanani, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Business Secretary, Shastrinagar, Co-op. Housing Society, Nanded, R/o. as above. 3. Madhavmal s/o. Najamal Parmani, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service in M.S.E.B., r/o. Nanded. 4. Girdhari s/o. Kimatrai, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service, in M.S.E.B., R/o. Nanded. (2) 5. Mulchand s/o. Kimatrai, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 6. Mohandas s/o. Dharamsingh Lalwani, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 7. Tulsi s/o. Bulchand, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. .. Respondents 8. Mohan s/o. Sevaram, .. Appeal already Age : 29 years, dismissed as against Occupation : Business, respondent no.8. R/o. as above. ....................... Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 7. Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.8 as per Court's order dated 6-5-2008. ........................ (3) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, extensively. 2. The plaintiff, erstwhile owner of huge piece of land, developed the same as non-agricultural activities, drew lay out, had 52 plots therein, 17 plots were carved out for the user of the members of the Housing Society, which indeed are in occupation. Few more plots were sold by the plaintiff to the others. The learned Judge also found, having left the open space in the layout, the plaintiff could not lay hand as owner, dispose of the same or to obstruct the user of the Society members for the said open space. 3. Mr. S.P. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that in an earlier round of litigation, there operates an injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Municipal Council. It may be correct, however, it will not adversely affect the rights of the members of the Society, who legally entered into transaction and it was a layout provided (4) indicating the open space therein for user of the members of the Society. Consequently, the observations of both the courts, against the plaintiff, could not be said to be flowing with any perversity or erroneous appreciation of facts or law. 4. The Second Appeal does not project any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa432