1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2006 Shobhabai w/o Ramrao Thoke Appellant Versus Vishram s/o Dashrath Kamble & others Respondents Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.G. Kamble, Advocate holding for Mr. M.M. Ambhore and Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocates for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 1108/1994 claiming declaration that plaintiff is the owner and possessor of suit house alongwith open space bearing Municipal House no. 5-17-33, admeasuring 15' X 36' situate at Mohalla Samtanagar, Aurangabad and also for cancellation of sale-deed dt. 24-10-1994 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1, being null and void. Plaintiff also claims recovery of possession of an area admeasuring 15' X 11' from the defendants. Plaintiff claims that she has 2 become owner of the suit property on the basis of purchase from one Lingamma C. Narayan. According to her, space of 15' X 11' between the suit property and plot of Magre is kept open. On 15-11-1994 plaintiff purchased an area towards norther side of the suit property for consideration of Rs.48,000/-. On 24-10-1994 defendant no. 2 without any concern had sold the space between the house of plaintiff and plot of Magre to defendant 1 for consideration of Rs.19,500/-. The space was not owned by defendant no. 2. According to plaintiff he had raised construction of latrine and bath room in the space adjoining the constructed portion. Plaintiff as such claims restrain order against the defendants from causing interference in her possession and user of the suit property. 3 Defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement. According to defendants, plaintiff is entitled to possess an area only to the extent of 15' X 25'. Defendants have denied all the adverse allegations made by the plaintiff. 4 Trial court after receiving evidence led by the parties recorded finding that plaintiff is entitled to claim her ownership in respect of an area to the extent of 15' X 25'. Plaintiff has failed to establish her case in respect of additional space which is a lane situate between the house of the plaintif 3 and the adjoining house. Trial court thus dismissed the suit presented by plaintiff. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal in Regular Civil Appeal no. 69/1999 which came to be heard and disposed of by the Adhoc Additional District Judge - 1, Aurnagabad who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment dt. 20-12-2003. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below have recorded finding that plaintiff has failed to establish her entitlement in respect of additional area wherein she alleges to have raised construction of latrine and bath room. The courts below have recorded finding that the area which plaintiff claims for herself is infact a lane and is not part and parcel of house acquired by the plaintiff by virtue of sale- deed executed in her favour. Findings of fact recorded by the courts below need not be interfered with while exercising powers under section100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE dyb/sa729.06.odt