1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2008 (Vishwanath Dayaram Patle & Anr. vs. Chhannulal Bhadru Tambhare) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 19, 2009. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant and Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff. The defendant has challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees by which the Courts have found the present appellants entitled to East West way on Southern side of the fields. Sanad (Exh. 40), Map (Exh. 46) which mention this way along with the evidence of defendant's witness – Mohanlal (DW-3) has been relied upon for said purpose. It is to be noticed that the entire land initially belonged to Jakhu and thereafter devolved upon Mansaram and Maniram, two cousins. The plaintiff purchased the land from Mansaram in 1961 and defendant purchased the land from Maniram in 1966. The Courts have also found that 1961 sale deed executed by Mansaram mention the way as claimed by the plaintiff. 2 Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel has contended that as Maniram or defendants were not party to said sale deeds, mention in that sale deed was not binding upon the present appellants. He is also relying upon the provisions of Section 8 of Easement Act to point out how only the Easement can be imposed on subservient tenement. The Courts have accordingly considered the evidence and I find that mention of sale deed is one of the supporting facts. The consideration is neither erroneous nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE *GS.