1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 307/2008 (Anusayabai wd/o Sadashiv Thakare & others VERSUS Vasanta Jairam Adaoo & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri N.N. Motghare, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. Heard Shri Motghare, the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the legal heirs of original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, who were the neighbouring field owners. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were the owners of adjoining Gat numbers which were in the vicinity of the Gat number which was owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that he had a right to use the way through the field of the defendant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no alternate way to approach his field. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had a right to use the suit way ABCDE to approach his Gat No.35. The 2 Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he could exercise an easementary right of necessity as there was no other way to approach his field. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE