1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2004 Sindhubai Badhaha Thorat ...Appellant VERSUS Pushpavati Eknath Tajane ...Respondent ------------------------------------------ Mr. A.M.Hajare,Advocate holding for Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate for appellant. Mr. P.S.Dighe, Advocate holding for Mr. V.R.Dhorde,Advocate for respondent No1. ------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J ) DATE : 6th October,2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit bearing Reg. Civil Suit no. 122 of 1998, claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of 4 R land out of Gut No. 208/2/6, equivalent to 405, more particularly described in 2 para no.1 of the plaint. The plaintiff’s case is that she has purchased piece of plot from Mikhayal Bhavani Brahmane on 04.07.1997 under registered sale deed. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property on the date of sale deed. The plaintiff has raised wire fencing on the four sides of the suit land to protect the boundaries. However, the defendant started obstructing the possession of plaintiff, as such, she was constrained to file the suit. 4. The contention of the defendant is that she has purchased the property from same vendor on 11.11.1983 under a registered sale deed. The property was purchased by the defendant to the extent of 6 Gunthas of land which is inclusive of property alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff. The defendant presented Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 1998 against the original vendor seeking decree of perpetual injunction, in which temporary injunction was also granted infavour of the defendant. The Court Commissioner was appointed in the said suit, and it was found that the defendant was in possession of the plot admeasuring 99 X 66 Square Feet. It was reported that wire fencing compound is erected for protection of the boundaries of the plot. According to defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim restrain order against 3 her. 5. The Trial Court after considering evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case and it is found that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and boundaries in respect of which order of injunction is sought are different. The plaintiff has not mentioned correct boundaries in the plaint and is seeking injunction order in respect of the plot having different boundaries then those mentioned in registered sale deed. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to establish her case in respect of her possession over disputed plot. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 4. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.36/1997, by the Additional District Judge Shrirampur, on 01.02.2003. The first Appellate Court has recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish her case in respect of the possession over the disputed land. It was also found by the Courts below that the plaintiff has no title in respect of the land and that she has also not given proper boundaries of the area claimed by her. On the 4 contrary, it has been observed by the Courts below that the defendant has established the title as well as possession in relation to property in question. In the circumstances, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by courts below need not be interfered with while exercising powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. ( R.M.BORDE, J. ) MTK/SA.528.04 5