1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 669 OF 2008 Smt. Anusayabai w/o Ganpat Tapaskar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Bahujanga s/o Kamaji Jadhav .. RESPONDENT Shri S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 31 st August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff / respondent herein presented Regular Civil Suit no. 22/2000 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against defendant. According to plaintiff, the disputed land belongs to him however, defendant who is the adjacent owner is trying to assert her right of way through the land belonging to the plaintiff. Infact, she has no such right and there is an alternate way available for her. Restrain order was therefore sought against 2 the defendant from using any part of survey no. 20. 3 Defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to her, previous owner of land survey no. 25 was using the part of survey no. 20 as an access for reaching his land. It is contended that in the year 1998 there was certain proceeding before the Mamlatdar. However, the Mamlatdar rejected the application tendered by the defendant. In an appeal presented against the order passed by the Mamlatdar, the appellate court reversed the decision and held in favour of the defendant. According to defendant, there is no other alternate way except approach through land survey no. 20. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that defendant has failed to establish her case. Findings of fact recorded by the trial court were confirmed in appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal no. 170/2002 by the first appellate court by judgment dt. 13-3-2006. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Defendant has not placed on record the copy of the judgment which 3 entitles her to use part of survey no. 20 as an access. The predecessor in title of the defendant has also not supported her case in respect of availability of way through land belonging to the plaintiff. It has also been observed by the courts below that the defendant has another access available for reaching her agricultural land. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the courts below were justified in holding in favour of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa669.08.odt