1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 185/2006 (Kashinath Kisan Paulzagde & another VERSUS Anusayabai Eknath Wankhade) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Saboo, counsel for the appellants. Shri Khondale, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 11, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendants have no right to obstruct the suit way. The plaintiff also sought the removal of encroachment made by the defendants on the suit way and further sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from using the suit way. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and, according to them, they had not made any encroachment on the suit way. They further denied that there was any approach road or suit way as stated by the plaintiff. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. 2 After appreciating the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving her ownership and possession over the suit property and also proved the existence of the road having 6 Feet width. The Court further held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the defendant was obstructing or blocking the suit way. The trial Court, therefore, granted the declaration and injunction as prayed by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the defendants. Both these judgments are challenged in the instant appeal. I have perused both the judgments in detail. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE