1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2008 Smt. Triveni Keshavrao Kokate vs. Rambhau Domaji Kalbande & Anr. 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. APRIL 09, 2008. Heard Shri Markandeywar, Advocate for the appellant – original plaintiff. The challenge is to the reversing appellate Court judgment. Shri Markandeywar, Advocate contends that Well in dispute is situated on dhura between field Survey No.379 of appellant and field Survey No. 380 of respondent. He states that revenue records (7/12 form) clearly show this position and he invites attention to the remark made in 7/12 extract for the year 1999-00. He further states that even the witness for defendant accepts that well was constructed by them as contractor and he points out that two labours who worked on well have been examined by the appellant to show that she also contributed to cost of construction. According to him, evidence on record has not been properly considered and still a well reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. 2 I have perused both the judgments. The facts accepted by the lower appellate Court show that the map issued by Village Officer (Exh. 18) show that Well comes within the area of land survey No.380 (old) or 331 (new). The said map is at Exh. 19. Not only this, the respondent has procurred loan from State Bank of India, Narkhed Branch and that evidence is also considered by lower appellate Court in paras 16 and 17 of its judgment. The electric connection on well is in the name of the respondent and also motor on it is purchased by him. The 7/12 extract for the year 2006-07 at Exh. 17 shows that Well and the motor pump are located in Survey No. 380 (old). These findings are based upon evidence which is available on record and therefore cannot be labelled as perverse. The contention that appellant was permitted to take water from well though accepted, does not make appellant owner of Well in any manner. It appears that she was permitted to draw surplus water from well as licensee. The contention that substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal is without any substance. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.