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.523 OF 2001. APPEAL NO.523 OF 2001. APPEAL NO.523 OF 2001. Saraswati Shripati Sawant & Anr. ...Appellants Versus. Kashinath Babu Nimbalkar ...Respondent. Shri R.R.Mahagaonkar for the Appellant No.2. Shri Vishwanath S. Talkute for the Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 07th February, 2008. : 07th February, 2008. : 07th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1. The Second Appeal is by the original defendants in a suit filed by the respondents for injunction. The respondents claimed to be the owners of the suit land. They filed the suit on allegation that the appellants are trying to obstruct their possession. The defence of the appellants was that there is a road passing through the suit land and they have a right to use the said road. The courts below have held that the appellants have failed to prove their case as regards the existence of any right of easement over the suit land. The trial Court decreed the suit and decree passed by the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal. 2. After having heard the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants, I find that no substantial question of law arises. The first : 2 : 2 : 2 : defendant/appellant had moved the Revenue Authorities by way of a proceeding under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 alleging that she had right to use disputed road allegedly passing through the suit land and the respondents were obstructing the said road. The application made by the first appellant was rejected by the Tahsildar. The said order has been confirmed in two appeals preferred by the first appellant. The orders passed by the authorities have attained finality. Considering the aforesaid material as well as report of the Court Commissioner, the courts below have concurrently held that the appellants have failed to establish the existence of any easementary right. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. 3. In view of the aforesaid order, Civil Application No.662 of 2001 does not survive and the same is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.