1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 296/2009 1. SMT. SAROJ W/O RAMESH PANDEL R/O GANDHIBAGH BEHIND LAL-IMLI, NAGPUR .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. KAWADUJI S/O THUNBAJI BOKDE R/O GANDHIBAGH BEHIND LAL-IMLI, NAGPUR .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sambhare h/f Mr. A.G. Gharote, Advocate, for respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2009 . By this appeal, the appellant challenges the concurrent findings recorded by the trial and the appellate Courts that the plaintiff/respondent had succeeded in proving the existence of a lane adjacent to the southern wall of his house and he was enjoying the light, air and ventilation from the aforesaid lane for a period of 30 years, by way of easementary right. The Courts further held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendant was digging pits for erecting pillars adjacent to the southern side wall of his house by encroaching upon the land. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled for the declaration and mandatory injunction as sought by the plaintiff. I have perused both the judgments. On a 2 perusal of the same, it is clear that the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. They cannot be interfered in the second appeal. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the right claimed in the instant suit by the plaintiff was not an easementary right at all and the Government was a necessary party to the suit as the land having width of 3.75 ft. is belonging to the Government, is liable to be rejected. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP