IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 353 OF 1997 Hari Govind Pagar ...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Mrs.Subodrabai Dada Pagar & Ors........ ...... Respondents. Mr.P.B.Shah, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. 13th OCTOBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the appellant. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. Suit was filed for declaration that the entry made by the respondent No.6 in its record in the name of Dada Buva Nanaji Patil in respect of suit property is illegal and liable to be struck down. The trial Court decreed the suit. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate court reversed the trial court's order. Consequently the appellant' s suit came to be dismissed. 2. The appellant-plaintiff did not ask for declaration of the title to the suit property but has asked only for declaration that the recording of name of respondent Nos.1 to 5' s predecessor in title in gram panchayat record is illegal. The case of the appellant was that names 1 of predecessor in title of respondents 1 to 5 was recorded pursuant to resolution No.170 which is illegal. The lower appellate court found resolution No.170 was not the basis for recording the names of predecessor in title of respondents 1 to 5. The appellant could not bring any evidence on record to show that the names of predecessor in title of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was recorded illegally. The lower appellate court rightly presumed in view of illustration (f) of section 114 of the Evidence Act that the gram panchayat has followed the common course of business. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in the present second appeal. Hence the same stands dismissed. 13.10.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2