1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.542 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.542 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.542 OF 2007 Shri Hanumanta Rama Valve (deceased through his legal heirs) 1a. Smt.Punjabai Hanumanta Valve and others. : Appellants. versus Ganpat Mahadeo Valve & Anr. : Respondents. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the appellants. Mr.M.M.Sathye for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Additional District Judge, Nashik dated 23.6.2006 by which order the appeal filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2002, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik Road in Regular 2 Civil Suit No.22 of 1999 came to be set aside. 2. The Appellants herein are the original plaintiffs in R.C.S.No.22/99. They had filed the said suit for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat No.29/3 admeasuring 0.89 Rs. The said suit had been filed against the respondents herein who are having their land, bearing Survey No.53 admeasuring 1 H. 62 Rs, near the Appellants’ land. The Appellants herein filed the said suit on the ground that the respondents are grazing their cattle in the Appellants’ field thereby causing damage and, the cause of action for filing the said suit arose on 26.11.1998 and 30.11.1998 when the respondents/defendants left their cattle in the field of the appellants/plaintiffs and caused damage to the standing crops. 3. The trial Court, on the basis of the material produced before it, decreed the said suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the trial Court, the respondents herein filed an appeal bearing Reg.Civil Appeal No.163 of 2002 which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2006. The Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding of fact that no obstruction much less damage 3 has been caused to the appellants/plaintiffs. The Lower Appellate Court also observed that the respondents/defendants have an easementary rights to pass over the bandh constructed on said Gat No.29/3 and that since the said fact had not been pointed out by the plaintiffs in the pleadings, the appellants/plaintiffs has not approached the Court with clean hands. Much is sought to be made as regards to the findings on facts recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. 4. In my opinion, the challenge of the appellants/plaintiffs in the above Second Appeal does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law. Hence the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.394 of 2007 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]