1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.398 OF 2010. (SMT. ANJANABAI KESHAV THOMBRE & ORS.....VS.. PANDURANG GOMAJI THOMBRE & ORS.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. K.V. Thomas, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they had an easementary right of way through the land / Dhura in the fields of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were using the suit way from the time immemorial. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs did not have any alternate way for approaching their fields. 3. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that the land of the defendants was fallow. According to the defendants there was an orange garden in field Survey No.855 and the plaintiffs could not have claimed a right of way through this field. The defendants pleaded that there was alternate way to the plaintiffs to approach their fields. The defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Both the Courts, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs were using the suit way to enter their fields. The Courts held that there was no other alternate way usable 2 by the plaintiffs for approaching their fields. The Courts held that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to declaration and perpetual injunction as regards their right of way. 5. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the material admission of the plaintiffs that there were orange trees in one of the fields of the defendants from about 5 to 6 years was not considered by the Courts and therefore, it is necessary to set aside the judgments passed by both the courts, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1986 and this statement made by the plaintiffs at the time of tendering evidence in the year 1994, did not falsify the case of the plaintiffs that the land of one of the defendants was fallow land at the time of institution of the suit. The other admission of the plaintiffs in the cross-examination that the plaintiffs were not claiming a right to pass through the field of the defendants was also not worth considering as the plaintiffs were not claiming right to pass through the fields of the defendants with standing crops and they were claiming a right to pass through the Dhura in the field of the defendants to approach their fields. 6. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RR.