( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 857 OF 2008 Sakharam s/o Rangnath Labhade and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent No.1A. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The suit filed by the appellants for relief of perpetual injunction vide R.C.S. No. 417/2005 came to be dismissed and the decree is upheld by the first Appellate Court while deciding the appeal (R.C.A. No. 14/2007). It is pertinent to notice that the case of the appellant before the Courts below was that the appellant No. 1 purchased the suit land and by way of family arrangement, some portion of the land was ( 2 ) allotted to the original defendants No. 2 and 3. The latters, however, attempted to create a new cart-way from southern side way of the suit land. Consequently, they filed suit for perpetual injunction. The Courts below held that the ownership and possession of the suit property was duly proved by the appellants. However, the relief of injunction could not be granted because they failed to prove that new cart-way was being created from southern side and that was the real dispute. In other words, the obstruction in the lawful possession of the appellants was not proved and the injunction was sought only because the dispute pertaining to creation of new cart-way was raised. The Courts below noticed that the existence of the cart-way is shown in the village map (Exh-28). It has been also noticed that the Revenue Officer had prepared a panchanama which indicated existence of the cart-way. There was no dispute between the parties when the map was drawn in the year 1975. Obviously, the injunction was sought in order to deprive the respondents from user of the cart- way which was already in existence and, therefore, the claim was denied by both the Courts below. There is no ( 3 ) perversity found in the view taken by the Courts below. In view of “Arumugham (Dead by L.Rs.) and others v. Sundrambal and another” (AIR 1999 SC 2216) and “Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Sing & another” (AIR 2008 S.C. 1749), the second appeal is not maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa857-08