1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.324 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4496 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5927 OF 2009 Anant s/o Keshavrao Joshi, R/o-House No.3-274, Deshpande Galli, A/P. Ambajogai, Dist-Beed. .. Applicants. Versus Swati D/o Laxmanrao Kale, R/o-House No.3-273, Deshpande Galli, At. Post. Ambajogai, Dist-Beed. .. Respondents. .... Mrs. Sanjivani Deshmukh / Ghate Advocate for Appellants. Mr.Shrikant Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the 2 Appellant and Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Appellant is the original plaintiff and Respondent is original defendant. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit NO.56/2001 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai for perpetual injunction restraining defendant from carrying out any construction on disputed plot which is situated towards the southern side of House No.M.C. 3-274. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased house bearing No. M.C. 3-274 and since then he is in possession of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant started construction on disputed plot measuring 8 X 5 ft., which is situated towards south of his house and shown in red colour of the map of the house which is annexed to the Plaint. On the basis of ownership, the plaintiff sought injunction against defendant from carrying out any construction on the disputed plot of land. 4. The trial Court framed Issue Nos. 3 and 5, 3 which read as under: ISSUES FINDINGS 3) Whether plaintiff proves that, defendants is trying to make encroachment upon east-west 8' and south-north 5' of area of house no. 3-274 from southern side by constructing latrine? Negative. 5) Whether plaintiff proves that on 15.4.2001 defendant tried to construct the latrine in disputed area? Negative. 5. The trial Court held that plaintiff is owner and in possession of house bearing No. 3-274 for last more than 30 years but the plaintiff failed to prove that disputed strip of land admeasuring 8 X 5 ft. is in his possession. As the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership in respect of the disputed plot of land, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.42 of 2005. The said Appeal also dismissed by the District Judge, Ambajogai by Judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2007. 6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that both 4 the Courts have not considered the fact that the alleged illegal construction of latrine by defendant is within the area of house of plaintiff, which is in his possession. 7. The plaintiff as well as defendant produced sale deeds in respect of their house property. In the sale deed of house property bearing No.3-274 of plaintiff, there is no mention of the disputed strip of land. As the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership in respect of the strip of land admeasuring 8 X 5 ft., I do not find any substance in the present Second Appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Second Appeal. Therefore, Second Appeal is dismissed summarily. 8. Civil Application No.4496 of 2008 preferred by the original plaintiff for injunction restraining Respondents from using the suit property for construction of W.C. As the Second Appeal is dismissed, nothing survive in the Civil Application No.4496 of 2008 and the same is rejected. 5 9. Civil Application No.5927 of 2009 preferred by the original plaintiff for production of additional documents on record. As the Second Appeal is dismissed, nothing survive in Civil Application No.5927 of 2008 and the same is rejected. (K.K. TATED, J.) asb/u/JUN09/sa324.08