( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2008 Vishwanath s/o Manik Sawase and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Karam s/o Manik Padale and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.V. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. Tukai Devi Trust comprises of a constructed temple of Goddess “Tukai Devi”. Father of appellants (plaintiffs) was the priest of the said Tukai Devi. He took initiative in formation of the Trust. He is no more. He had allotted an open plot for construction of the temple, during his lifetime, and the Trust was registered when he was alive. ( 2 ) 3. The case of the appellants (plaintiffs) was that an open plot admeasuring only 40 feet x 40 feet was given by their father out of land bearing Gat No. 599 in order to construct the temple of Tukai Devi. They alleged that excluding the said 40 feet x 40 feet area, the rest of the land was in their possession and that they were entitled to claim declaration of ownership and injunction because the respondents (defendants) were causing obstruction in their possession. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court, however, came to conclusion that the open plot allotted for the temple Trust is of 91 feet east-west x 169 feet by south-north. The first Appellate Court held that the dispute relates to area of the plot and there was no question of denial to the ownership of the appellants (plaintiffs) in respect of remaining land. The first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal accordingly and held that the declaration would be only to the extent of the area excluding the open plot of 91 feet x 169 feet size area assigned to and covered by Tukai Devi temple Trust. 5. Counsel would submit that the finding of the ( 3 ) first Appellate Court is perverse in as much as it is based on only entries in the P.T.R. register. It is contended that the findings of the trial Court are quite proper. Reliance is placed on certain observations in “Sitalsing Asaram Naik and others v. Narbadabai w/o Laxman Prasad Shukla and others” 2002 (1) Mah.L.R.18. This Court held that entries in the P.T.R. register would not take away rights of the third party, who had no opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. With due respect, this authority is of no much assistance to the appellants. For, admittedly, their father was not a third party in relation to the Tukai Devi temple Trust. He was not only the priest of the Tukai Devi but had taken active role in registration of the Trust. He and the defendants together formulated the Trust. Obviously, it cannot be said that the entry in the P.T.R. register was taken behind his back. Nor, such a entry is challenged by the plaintiffs in their pleadings. Though the dispute related to the area allotted to the Tukai Devi Trust, yet, they filed the ( 4 ) suit simplicitor for injunction and declaration. The first Appellate Court considered the entries in the P.T.R. register as well as the village panchayat tax register and held that mere verbal assertion of the appellants, regarding the area of the open plot allotted to the temple by their father, could not be regarded as sufficient proof so as to dislodge the entries. In view of such finding of fact, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law as such is involved in this appeal as required under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, civil application No. 7401/2008 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa303-08