1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.167 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.04.2011. 1. Heard. 2. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for declaration that he is owner of l hectare 45 ares land of Gat No.499. He also prayed for injunction in respect of said land and also for declaration that plaintiff has half share in the well. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff as owner to the extent of 1 hectare 45 ares land but refused injunction in respect of the said land on the ground that plaintiff himself admitted that the defendants are not obstructing his possession. It was held that the well is dug by the defendants 2 and plaintiff does not have any share in the well. The plaintiff preferred appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel submits that it was erroneous on the part of the Court below, not to grant the relief of injunction in respect of 1 hectare 45 ares land though it is held by the Court that the plaintiff is owner of the said area of the land. The learned counsel further contends that even in respect of the well, the Courts have arrived at an incorrect conclusion. According to the learned counsel, once it is found that plaintiff is owner of 1 hectare 45 ares land then injunction should have been granted in respect of the said land. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Anjali Dube, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendants are not obstructing his possession of land admeasuring 1 hectare 45 ares land. As such no injunction could have been clamped against the 3 defendants. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff himself admitted that after the partition was effected, the defendants have dug the well and have installed electric motor after taking loan from the Bank. In light of that, the plaintiff does not have any share in the well. 5. It is a fact that the plaintiff could not show his share in the well as he himself admitted that it is the defendant Dhondiram who has dug the well after the partition. In such circumstances, declaration to that effect is rightly refused. 6. The Courts have held plaintiff to be the owner of l hectare 45 ares land of Gat No.499 but as the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that the defendants are not obstructing his possession, the Courts have refused the injunction. Unless there is an obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff over his area of 1 hectare 45 ares land, the plaintiff would not be entitled for injunction. It is only if obstruction is caused to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would get a right to claim injunction. 7. In light of the above, no error is 4 committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned decree. The Second Appeal as such is devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.04.2011. asp/office/sa167.10