1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.272 OF 2010 SMT. RUKHMABAI VASRAM JADHAV ..VS.. SAU. PANCHFULA NAMDEO ADE Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 9 th JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit lane. According to the plaintiff there was a lane on the western side of her house and after that lane the house of the defendant was located. Since the plaintiff was in possession of the land, she sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession over the lane. The defendant had denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant stated that some portion of the wall had fallen down and hence though there was no lane in between the house of the plaintiff and the defendant, it appeared as if there was a lane in between the houses. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving her possession over the suit lane. Since it was a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, t he courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to grant of injunction as she had clearly proved her possession over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of 2 facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgment reported in AIR 2003 Bombay Page 1 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as firstly, the case is distinguishable on facts and secondly in the reported judgment the plaintiffs had not only sought a permanent injunction, but had also sought a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.