1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1721 OF 2004 Sau Sindhubai w/o Baburao Pote & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Manaji Kisan Kasar (deceased through LRs) & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate holding for Shri R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 2 nd September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant nos. 1 to 3 raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the 3 rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 30-9-2003 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 465/2001 thereby modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Pathardi in Regular Civil Suit No. 171/97 on 7-4-2000. 2 Suit was presented by original plaintiffs / respondent nos. 1 and 2 2 herein claiming perpetual injunction as well as mandatory injunction in respect of the southern side 2/3 rd share out of land gat no. 594 situate at village Kasarwadi, Tq. Pathardi. In substance, allegation made in the plaint by plaintiffs is that defendants who are the purchasers of part of the share belonging to the plaintiffs have raised construction over the area which has fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs as such claim mandatory injunction and seeking direction to remove construction which is alleged to have been raised on the 2/3 rd portion out of land gat no. 594. 3 It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the matter. Trial court granted decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff, however, has refused to grant mandatory direction in respect of removal of construction made over the area which has fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal no. 465/2001 which came to be heard and disposed of by the 3 rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar who was pleased to allow the same and in addition to the decree of perpetual injunction, first appellate court granted mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant nos. 1 to 3 / appellants herein directing them to remove the construction made by them on 2/3 rd share out of land gat no. 59 which is 3 claimed by the plaintiffs. 4 I have perused the judgment recorded by the first appellate court. It is not disputed that the defendant no. 1 has purchased 8 R land out of 14 R land from defendant no. 4. Plaintiffs apprehend that taking advantage of the decree, construction made by them in the area allotted to the share of Genu would also be pulled down. Apprehension expressed is groundless for the reason that the decree passed by the first appellate court is specific and while executing the decree, such of the construction which is raised on the are which has been allotted to the share of plaintiffs i.e. to the extent of 2/34d share out of land gat no. 549 is only liable to be pulled down. Objections raised to the decree are essentially matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa1721.04.odt