1 429.10-sa bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.429 OF 2010 Sau.Usha Mohan Kamat ..Appellant Vs. Balkrishna Ladu Mestri & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for appellant. Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b. M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for respondent No.4. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2010 P.C.: Heard both sides. 2. This is a second appeal arising out of suit for injunction with an additional relief for declaration of certain rights on the basis of possession. The said suit was decreed partly against defendant who is his neighbour. It is mostly a common domestic dispute between two neighbours who are villagers and their relations changed with passing of time. The dispute is over a drainage and waste water flowing from both the houses and also another issue of fetching water from the Well belonging to the appellant­original plaintiff. There is also a dispute between the parties over road for a house of the plaintiff. Such dispute in a village, where mostly boundaries of the respective residential properties are not defined and described even in the Revenue and the Grampanchayat record. So the party in distress normally adopt such remedies by filing a suit before the Civil Court. The present case appears to be is one of such disputes. 3. Perused the impugned judgment and order dated 6th July, 2007. Admittedly, there was a previous dispute between the defendant as tenant of the “Trust property” and it had attained the finality. Mr.Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for the respondent admitted this position. 2 429.10-sa 4. The appellant before this Court felt aggrieved only because some evidence recorded and observations were made pertaining to his sale deed, which he obtained from the erstwhile tenant of Devasthan property, which is not the present dispute. As such, those observations are not the issues before the Court below and therefore do not call for adjudication any further in appeal. These were unwarranted. As observed above, the Trial Court’s judgment and decree partly allowing the suit has given an appropriate relief to the plaintiff and as such there is no case made out involving substantial question of law admitting this Second Appeal, merely because the Trial Court and the first appellate Court has recorded certain findings when they were not at issue in the original proceeding. The present Second Appeal is devoid of substance. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed summarily, with no order as to costs. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)