:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2008 Sampatrao Mahadev Gujar ...Appellant. v. Kalyan Mahadev Gujar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.N.Karlekar , adv. for the Appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 25th August, 2008. DATE: 25th August, 2008. DATE: 25th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff no.2 Sampatrao. 2. To state in brief, the original plaintiff no.1 Pralhad and the plaintiff no.2 Sampatrao and the defendant no.1 Kalyan are brothers inter-se. They hold a portion of the land from gat no.938 and 939. Defendant nos.2 to 14 claim to have purchased a portion of the land from gat no.938 under a registered sale deed from the defendant no.1 Kalyan and constructed the houses. It was their contention that to the Northern side of the gat nos.938 and 939, there is a 12 feet wide road, which is available for use of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. However, according to the plaintiffs, defendant nos.2 to 14 had no right over that alleged road and it is a private passage for the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and defendants were :2: creating nuisance by using that passage. On the other hand, defendant nos.2 to 14 claimed that the said right was exercised by the defendant no.1 when he was owner of the land and the same right was given to them also. Several issues were framed. It appears that the defendant no.1, who had not filed written statement, also supported the other defendants during the trial. Not only this, the plaintiff no.1 Pralhad also during the pendency of the suit engaged a separate lawyer and filed affidavit in examination-in-chief in support of the defendants and thus, plaintiff no.2 Sampatrao was left alone to prosecute the suit. After hearing the evidence for both the parties, the learned trial Court held that the defendants had a right of way through 12 ft. wide road situated to the Northern side of the land gat nos.938 and 939. With these findings, suit came to be dismissed. In the above referred circumstances, plaintiff no.2 alone filed Regular Civil Appeal No.616 of 2002, which was also dismissed by the District Court and hence, he has filed the present Second Appeal. 3. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, the evidence and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the matter. 4. In the result, Second Appeal stands dismissed. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)