1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 215/2010 (Sheshrao Paikuji Gaidhane & others VERSUS Rambhau Shamraoji Gaidhane & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Sudhir Moharir, counsel for the appellants. Shri P. Gode, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2010 . Heard. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from restraining the defendants from obstructing the right of the plaintiffs to use the cart way. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and their forefathers were using the cart way from a long long time and the defendants had illegally obstructed the way of the plaintiffs to approach the field from the cart way. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement and the defendant no.2 failed to file the same. It was pleaded by the defendant no.1 that the plaint map produced by the plaintiffs was not correct and neither the plaintiffs nor their forefathers were using the cart way for ingress and egress. According to the defendant no.1, in fact, from the plaint 2 pleadings, it was apparent that there was no cart way in existence. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that there was a cart way shown by letters ABCDEFGH in the plaint map. The Courts further held that the plaintiffs had not acquired an easementary right of prescription in regard to the cart way. The plaintiffs, according to both the Courts, had failed to prove that there was no alternate way to approach their field. The Courts held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to grant of permanent injunction. The findings recorded by the trial and the first appellate Court on the aforesaid issues are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the first appellate Court has not considered the oral evidence of the witnesses, is unacceptable as it is found on a reading of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court that the first appellate Court has considered the relevant oral evidence along with all the material documents filed by the parties on record. 3 Since the findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE