1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.346 OF 2010 VITTHAL SHRAWAN RAUT ..VS.. NANA LAXMAN ASKASR & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 2/8/2010 Heard Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that the defendant did not have a right of way between the boundary of two fields bearing survey no.101 and survey no.102. The plaintiff was the owner of the field survey no.102. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Tahsildar had unnecessarily created a way for the defendants through the survey no.100/1 and 100/2 and the boundary of field survey no.101 and 102. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants had an alternate way along the boundaries of field survey no.96 and 97 to approach their fields. The plaintiffs therefore, sought a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from approaching their fields through the boundary of field survey no.102 belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the defendants were using the same way for last 20 years and since the plaintiff had obstructed the defendants from using the said way the defendants had applied to the Tahsildar for a direction to the plaintiff to clear the way. The Tahsildar Seloo, according to the defendants had rightly 2 granted the way to the defendants as the plaintiff did not have any right to create any obstruction to the defendants in the user of the said way. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that the defendants did not have a right of way through the boundary of field survey no.102 belonging to the plaintiff. Both the courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a grant of mandatory and permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The courts considered the evidence tendered by the parties along with the report of the Tahsildar to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.