1 sa277.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2011 Govind s/o Dhenu Jadhav, Age-67 years, Occ: Private service, R/o. Pashupatinath Nagar, Behind New Adarsha Colony, Latur. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Madhav Narayan Dudhale, Age: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Pashupatinath Nagar, Behind New Adarsha Colony,Latur. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, the plaintiff failed to place anything on record that he is the owner of the property. There was no any cause of action to file such suit. He further submits that, the plaintiff did not place anything on record to show that there was any 2 sa277.11 interference or obstruction by the appellant herein who is the original defendant in the suit. Learned Counsel further submits that, Record and Proceedings may be called. He further submits that, when the plaintiff utterly failed to bring on record any document showing his ownership and when there is no obstruction/interference by the defendant i.e. appellant herein, second appeal deserves consideration. 2. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that original plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It has come on record that the appellant herein has dispute with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. It has also come on record that, the flour mill of the plaintiff caused annoyance to the defendant and therefore, he wish to remove the same. Though the Counsel appearing for the appellant was at pains to argue that separate proceedings are filed 3 sa277.11 for removal of the said flour mill, however, from reading of para-14 of the judgment of trial Court, it is abundantly clear that, the defendant is not allowing the plaintiff to erect a door with his flour mill since last 2 years. Therefore, there are concurrent findings of fact in consonance with the evidence brought on record. 3. In appeal filed by the appellant, the appellant has not placed anything on record to indicate or suggest that he is the owner of the suit property. From the perusal of grounds taken in the second appeal, none of the grounds appeals to this Court to entertain the second appeal. Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The findings recorded by the Courts below are not perverse in any manner. Second Appeal stands dismissed summarily. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11