1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. SA NO.665/2006 (UTTAM VS.GOVIND) 1. Original defendants raise a challenge to the judgments recoded by the Courts below. 2. The suit was presented claiming declaration of ownership as well as injunction in respect of land Survey No. 59/A admeasuring 11 acres and 30 gunthas situated at village Yenki as well as in respect of four mango trees situated on the eastern side of said Survey No.59/A. 3. Defendants have admitted possession and ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of land admeasuring 11 acres and 30 gunthas but disputed the correctness of the claim raised by the plaintiffs in respect of four mango trees. 4. The trial Court granted decree in respect of two mango trees in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 1986, aggrieved by the rejection of part of the claim in respect of remaining mango trees. The first appellate Court, while allowing the appeal partly has modified the decree passed by the trial Court and clamped a restraint order against defendants restraining them from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of three mango trees. 5. Defendants have approached this Court raising challenge to the concurrent judgments passed by the Court below. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. 6. I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. It is to be taken note that the parties are closely related to each others. Considering the trivial nature of the dispute, the contentions raised by appellants need not be gone into. No substantial question of law has been raised in the second appeal. 7. In the result, Second Appeal stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Dt.23.7.2009 (R.M.BORDE, J.) akl