1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.184 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 27.04.2011. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit premises bearing house No.9. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, declared the plaintiff to be the joint owner of House No.9, so also injuncted the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over his house No.9. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2 3. Mr.Munde, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court has without any evidence on record held the defendant to be the owner of Plot No.12. According to the learned counsel old Plot No.9 is plot No.12 and now is numbered as Plot No.14. The learned counsel further contends that the lower appellate Court has misdirected itself on the boundaries. In deposition the boundaries of Plot No.12 were given which originally was of Plot No.9 and so it can not be said that there was any variance in the boundaries given by the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has not considered the material evidence on record and has given a perverse finding. Even no issue of ownership of the defendant was framed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The lower appellate Court has observed that Exh.73 contains the list of inhabitants. House at serial No.9 stands in the name of the plaintiff, while House No.12 in the said list stands in the name of defendant and House No.13 in the name of 3 Rajubai. The document shows that plot No.9 was inherited by the plaintiff from his father alongwith other heirs. The plaintiff does not dispute this position. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiff regarding injunction in respect of House No.9 is also granted by the lower appellate Court and the defendant is restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over his plot No.9. The Courts have not declared the defendant to be the owner of any particular property. It has considered the case put forth by the rival parties and arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff could prove his joint ownership in respect of the house No.9. The dispute is not in respect of any other property. In such circumstances, when the relief of declaration and injunction both have been granted in respect of House No.9 then the plaintiff could not have any grievance. 5. The Courts have also discussed the oral evidence led in this regard and has also considered the admissions given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination. The same has been discussed by the lower appellate Court in para 10 4 of its judgment. 6. In light of the above, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.27.04.2011. asp/office/sa184.11