ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 631 OF APPEAL NO. 631 OF APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2006 2006 2006 Dattu Mahadu Patil ...Appellant. Vs. Hambira Mahadu Salunkhe & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for the Appellant. Ms.A.R.S.Baxi for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 23rd April, 2008 : 23rd April, 2008 : 23rd April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Second Appeal filed by the Original Plaintiff. The suit for the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. The property involved in the suit is open space surrounding the house No.130. The Defendants purchased the said property by the registered sale-deed Exhibit 73, some time in the year 1985. The Plaintiff has unable to support his case of title or ownership of the said plot based upon assessment extract and oral evidence. The Trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit rightly, as the plaintiff failed to prove his right title, ownership and occupation over the suit property. 2. The Appellant-plaintiff, therefore, preferred an ( 2 ) appeal. 3. The Lower Appellate Court, by an order dated 10th January, 2006 re-appreciated the evidence and comes to a same conclusion and thereby maintained the order passed by the Trial Court. 4. However, it is clear that the description of the suit property in question wrongly mentioned in the points as framed and also in the reasoning given. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff is the owner of house No.129/2. Other side has also not disputed this possession, even on the record of the proceedings. 5. Now, what remains is that the right as claimed by the Plaintiff with regard to the open plot surrounding to house No.130 which is described in sale-deed Exhibit 73 readwith Exhibit 69 i.e. evidence of the Defendant. In this background, it is clear that the plaintiff is the owner of Grampanchayat House No.129(2) only. Therefore, for want of material as well as evidence, the courts below have rightly dismissed the case of the Plaintiff. 6. Taking all this into account and in view of the ( 3 ) above observations, no interference is necessary in the findings as arrived by the Courts below with regard to the sale-deed dated 10/09/1985 i.e. plot in question. There is no substantial questions of law involved. The impugned judgment and order is within the framework of law and record. 7. The Second Appeal is disposed of, accordingly. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)