1 S.A.NO.266/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.266 OF 2009. Vasudeo s/o Pralhad Mali ...Appellant. VERSUS 1. Janabai W/o Sopan Tayade & another. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Chavan, Advocate h/f Mr.C.G.Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 29th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. The appellant/original plaintiff sought injunction to prevent the respondents entry in his land. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants claim that they, since long, have been using the boundary of the appellant’s land as path way to gain access to their land. The appellant tried to suggest that the respondents could gain access to their land 2 S.A.NO.266/2009. by an alternate pathway. But the First Appellate Court held on facts that the respondents could prove that there is customary path way through the appellant’s land. In view of this finding of fact the first appellate court dismissed the appellant’s suit. 2. Having gone through the judgments and also the depositions, I realised that while recording the findings, the first appellate Court has given cogent reasons. The findings of fact do not need any further scrutiny. There exists no substantial questions of law. Appeal stands dismissed. 3. In view of this, Civil Application No. 3802/2009 does not survive. It stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp