1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 223/2008 Baliram Amruta Wankhede (Jinger) ..vs.. Parashram N. Mule(dead) thru. Lrs Smt. Parvatabai P. Mule & ors Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 1st July, 2008. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that he was the owner of the passage admeasuring 6 ft. x 20 ft and since the defendant had obstructed the plaintiffs from using the said passage by affixing door on the opening point of the same, the plaintiffs also sought a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs and their family members from using the passage. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that he was the owner of the passage running from North-South to the West of Nazul Plot No.951. The alternate plea of the plaintiffs that they had easementary right to use the passage was also denied by the defendant. 2 The trial Court has relied upon the Sale Deed dated 20th October, 1951, at exh. 74 and other evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the plaintiffs had proved their ownership over the suit property. The trial Court, therefore, directed the defendant to keep the entrance door open for the passage of the plaintiffs. In an appeal filed by the defendant, the first Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The first Appellate court held that merely because the Nazul record reflected the name of the defendant, it was not possible to hold that the defendant was the owner of the suit property, more so, because the Nazul record was prepared on the basis of a survey without taking the Sale Deed dated 20th October, 1951 into consideration. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Andurkar.