1 S.A.No.473/08. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.473 OF 2008 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 09.12.2010. 1. This is defendant No.2's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of house No.1762 with independent east-west passage of 4 fts. in width and 30 fts. in length. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant No.2 preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant No.2 has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the 2 S.A.No.473/08. appellant contended that the lane in question is a common lane and it is meant for common use and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants. There is no evidence by which one can conclusively come to the conclusion that the said lane is of exclusive ownership of plaintiff. The existence of lane is not disputed and unless the plaintiff establishes his exclusive title over the said lane, he does not get any right to seek relief of injunction against the appellant. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The Courts below have relied on depositions of the three witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. So also, have considered the recitals of the sale deed executed by Kerba in favour of the plaintiff. The said recitals succinctly shows that the lane has also been shown to be owned by the plaintiff. The title document of the defendants nowhere shows that the said property was for use and enjoyment of defendant along with the plaintiff. Both the Courts on evaluation of evidence, oral as well as documentary have come to the 3 S.A.No.473/08. conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his ownership over the said lane. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.09.12.2010. asp/office/sa473.08 4 S.A.No.473/08.