1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.440/2007 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant. Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J . ] Date : 7th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard Mr. Kulkarni and Mr Latange counsel for respective parties. Plaintiff dis-satisfied by dismissal of the suit by order dated 16/10/2004 preferred the appeal. Lost at the appellate court by order dated 17/03/2007 and has now questioned the same in second appeal. 2 The substantial questions of law Mr. Kulkarni would project is that :- 2 a) Whether in 1956 the respondent could legitimately purchase the disputed property for Rs.95/- without there being any document to establish such transaction? b) Whether the Courts were correct in appreciating that the land Gat no. 307 at Varud Kazi was; 7acres 38 gunthas, however deleting certain portion acquired in Gavthan, the owner had conveyed few plots from time to time and the plaintiff was in possession of 3 gunthas of land? 3 In earlier proceeding, R.C.S. no. 315/2003 filed by one Bhagirathibai, plaintiff has accepted the document in favour of the present defendants execute by the original owner which is for 4 ½ gunthas. 4 Substantial question as tried to be formulated would not be surfacing as both courts have found plaintiff could not prove his title, boundaries, dimension and even area of the plot is 3 not clearly spelt out. The defendants were found in possession of the property having so purchased from the original owner in the year 1956. The plaintiff could not describe his exact property or its boundaries with dimension. Consequently, Court did not agree for decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. I do not see any error of law on the part of both Courts. Second Appeal dismissed. No cost. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa440.07