1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 125/2010 (Shankarrao Ramaji Bhoyar VERSUS The Estate Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.B. Ambilwade, counsel for the appellant. Mrs. S. Jachak, counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 21, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and that the respondent-Corporation authorities may be permanently injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed dated 06.05.1987 and was paying the Corporation taxes since then. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit house, i.e. a hut, was an encroachment on the road side and the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff had made such an encroachment thereby causing nuisance to the residents of the locality and also causing 2 hindrance to the traffic. It was the case of the defendants that the suit was not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 384 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both, the trial and the first appellate Court, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that he was the owner and possessor of the suit property. The Courts then held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants had obstructed the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The Courts also concurrently held that the suit was not tenable in view of absence of notice to the defendants under Section 384 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the plaintiff by relying on a decision reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 618 (Gram Panchayat, Kuhi Versus Vijaykumar) that no notice is necessary in a suit filed for permanent injunction only, is liable to be rejected as firstly, the said decision pertains to a case under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and secondly, 3 the present suit is not filed for grant of permanent injunction only and the plaintiff had also sought a declaration of his ownership over the suit property. The other judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 (Vidyadhar Versus Manikrao & others) does not apply to the facts of this case as it is a well settled position of law that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and cannot succeed on the weakness of the case of the defendant. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE