1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2008 Shri Baban Nanaso Babar ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus Shri Avinash Balwant Babar ... Respondent (Orig. Defendant) Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.V.Bandiwadekar, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 17th September,2008. DATE : 17th September,2008. DATE : 17th September,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. The dispute is about the open space admeasuring 12’ x 7’ adjoining the house of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that it is a part of his house and it has been 2 in his occupation since the time of his grandfather who had purchased the property in 1927. However,in 1988, when city survey was conducted,this piece of land was recorded in the name of the defendant. In the year 1990, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.319 of 1993 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing or interfering in possession over the suit property. The defendant contended that it was a part of his property. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal no.182 of 1998. That appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside. 3. On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts, it appears that the plaintiff/appellant did not enter into the witness box to give evidence about the ownership of the space. He examined his brother, who was holding his power of attorney. His brother was residing in Mumbai and not in the village Kikali, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara where the disputed property is situated. The appellate Court held that in view of this, the plaintiff has not placed on record the reliable evidence in support of his contention. I find that even though the sale deed under which the grandfather of the plaintiff had purchased the property reveals that the area of the property purchased 3 by him was 24 x 8 cubix. It appears that no attempt was made to get the property measured to show that the suit property admeasuring 12’ x 7’ is a part of the property which was purchased by grandfather of the plaintiff. 4. Even though there is a conflict in finding of facts by the Courts below, no substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal. Therefore the appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. No.580 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)