1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2007 Shakuntalabai Narayan Buttey & Ors. vs. Maltibai w/o Dr. M.B. Dabhade 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. NOVEMBER 30, 2007. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants. The challenge in this Second Appeal by present appellants – original defendants is to the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by Courts below holding that a lane of 3 feet width existed between houses of plaintiff and present appellants. The trial Court decreed the suit partly and directed the present appellants to remove the support taken by them from wall AC of the house of plaintiff. The decree was not challenged by present appellants – defendants in First Appeal. In First Appeal filed by present respondent – original plaintiff, the appellate Court has issued direction to present appellants to remove their latrine constructed beyond wall AC i.e. ABCD and in the lane. 2 Thus, suit has been decreed entirely by the appellate Court. Shri Purohit, learned counsel, by placing reliance upon the compromise dated 25.6.1997 entered into between the parties earlier, has tried to contend that compromise mentions the length of said land as 11' 6”. The latrine of the appellants was in existence beyond this 11' 6” and since last 30 years. He contends that this has been established on record by producing even sanctioned map Exh. 115 and the trial Court as also the appellate Court have considered the evidence. The cross examination of present respondent is read out by Shri Purohit. In said cross examination, the appellants have not specifically put any suggestion to the respondent that beyond 11' 6” there was no lane. On the contrary, in cross, the respondent has stated that the lane was initially open on its both ends and brother of defendant in 1975 closed its Western end. He has further stated that in spite of that, he was using entire lane from other entrance i.e. Eastern entrance. In view of this evidence and its appreciation by Courts below, I am not in a position to accept the hypothetical arguments 3 advanced by Shri Purohit on the basis of compromise between the parties. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE