1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 404/2010 (Narayan Dajiba Khanzode VERSUS Sharad Bhikaji More & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.R. Deshpande h/f Shri A.M. Ghare, counsel for the appellant. Shri V.K. Paliwal, counsel for the R-1 & 2. Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 1 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for a declaration that the orders passed by the revenue authorities in the proceedings between the parties in respect of the right of the way of the plaintiff are not binding on the plaintiff as the same had resulted in causing injustice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from using the way shown in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the plaintiff had a right of way through the boundary of the defendant's field. According to the defendants, the issue of plaintiff having a right of way 2 through the defendants' fields' boundary was already decided by the Revenue Authorities and it has been held by the authorities that the plaintiff did not have any right of way through the suit way pleaded in the plaint paragraph 1. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff had a right to approach his field through a pandhan. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that there was no other way except the suit way by which he could approach his agricultural field. The Courts held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in appeal were not binding on the plaintiff. Having answered the two aforesaid issues in the negative, both the Courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration or permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Courts considered the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and also the map and the other documentary evidence to hold that there was no material to show that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were unjust or improper. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE