1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.394 OF 2010 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.395 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.04.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The appellant in S.A.No.394/2010 is the original defendant. In the said suit the Respondent had filed a suit for injunction restraining the present appellant from interfering in his possession in the use of the well to the extent of his share, whereas the appellant in S.A.No.395/2010 is the original plaintiff who had also instituted the suit for the same relief in respect of the same subject matter. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants and decreed the suit filed by the 2 present Respondents. The present appellant preferred two appeals. The District Court vide its common judgment dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have filed the present Second Appeals. 3. Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts should have evaluated the evidence independently and should not have been guided by the earlier judgment. The earlier judgment was in respect of suit for simpliciter injunction which would not operate as a res-judicata. The learned counsel contends that subsequently the present appellants had dug said well i.e. known as Jawali well. In the said Jawali well, the present Respondents does not have any right,title or interest. The Respondents had a right only in the old well in which there is no water. The Courts below have not properly considered this aspect and thereby has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. 4. Per contra, Mr.Mande, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents have share in the water of the said Jawali well 3 also. Both the Courts on evaluation of evidence has concurrently held this fact. Earlier suit bearing RCS No.291/1996 was filed by the present appellant. In the said suit also the right of the present Respondents to the extent of 50 ana share in the said Jawali well was confirmed. The said judgment has become final and has not been assailed by the present appellants. 5. I have heard leaned counsels. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. The parties were at dispute in RCS No.291/96. The said dispute was also in respect of Jawali well. In the said suit the present appellants contended that they have exclusive right right in the said Jawali well. The Court on consideration of the evidence in the said case came to the conclusion that the well in land Gat No.105 is situated. There is old well so also a Jawali well and it was held that the plaintiffs and defendants therein who are also the present appellants and Respondents have got 8 ana share. In view of the said conclusive finding of the competent Court of jurisdiction, no other finding 4 could have been arrived at. The same would also operate as res-judicata as said issue was also directly and substantially an issue in the earlier suit. 6. In light of the above, the Second Appeals being sans substantial question of law, are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.18.04.2011. asp/office/sa394.10 5