1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 351/2009 1. Nago s/o Pandu Aswale, Aged about 78 years, Occu: Cultivation. 2. Hanuman s/o Nago Aswale, Aged about 38 years, Occu: Cultivation. 3. Vithal s/o Nago Aswale, Aged about 31 years, Occu: Cultivation. All R/o Panwadhala, Tah. Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur. APPELLANTS VERSUS Hunduji s/o Tulshiram Khangar, Aged about 68 years, Occu: Contractor, R/o Panwadhala, Tah. Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur. RESPONDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 1, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants 2 from obstructing the plaintiffs from constructing the compound wall on the area denoted by letters AN in the plaint map. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving his title and possession over the suit land. The Courts then recorded a finding that the appellants-defendants had obstructed the plaintiffs in constructing the compound wall. The Courts also held that the defendants had failed to prove their title and possession over the suit site. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled for grant of permanent injunction. Since no substantial question of law arises from the findings, which are pure findings of facts, recorded by both the Courts, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE