1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.519 OF 2010. Sameer S/o Lachhulal Agrawal ... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Adkine, advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.G.Koche, advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.P.P.More, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.10.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appeal is by the original plaintiff. He has filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from creating way from his land Gat No.15. The trial Court dismissed 2 the suit. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in this Court. 2. Mr.Adkine, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that there was way from the land of the plaintiff. The defendants are trying to create a new way from the land of the plaintiff which can not be permitted. According to Mr.Adkine, learned counsel if the map is perused, it will be clear that his land is in U shape and that the defendants do not have any right to go from the land of the plaintiff. For that purpose he has relied on the Toch map which is produced on record. According to learned counsel, if the said Toch map is also perused, it will show that the defendants can not have any access from the land of the plaintiff. 3. Per contra, Mr.Koche, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the 3 plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. He had suppressed the fact that in the year 1996 the Tahsildar had conducted the spot inspection and had decided the right of the way of the parties. According to the learned counsel it has been proved that right of way exist from the Dhura of the land of the plaintiff. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts. It has been observed by the lower appellate Court that in the year 1996, the Tahsildar had visited the spot and held that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants Nos.3 and 4 was having right of way through the field of the plaintiff. Even the witness of the plaintiff, namely, Madhukar has admitted in his cross-examination that there is no fencing to the field of plaintiff. He further admitted that the defendants are approaching their field through Dhura of the field of the plaintiff. Both the Courts have discussed the evidence on record and have concurrently come to the conclusion that the defendants have a right 4 of way through Dhura of the land of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa51910