( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2004 Sau. Rajasbai Abhiman Patil .. Appellant Versus Sahebrao Jairam Patil .. Respondent Miss Mamta Warma h/f. Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.P. Bhandari with Shri Rajesh M. Pardeshi h/f. Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 14.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Miss Mamta Warma h/f. Adv. Shri B.R. Warma for the appellant and Adv. Shri A.P. Bhandari h/f. Adv. Shri R.M. Deshmukh for the respondent. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit for injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below. It is case of the plaintiff/appellant that she is owner of plot No.16, situated ( 2 ) at village Vikhurle, Tal. Sindhkheda, Dist. Dhule. The property was admeasuring 50’ x 48’. According to her she is owner of the the same and she wanted to make construction in the plot and at that time the defendant obstructed the construction and therefore she filed suit for injunction. 2. In para 15 of the Appellate Court judgment it is mentioned that name of the plaintiff was entered in the Grampanchayat record on the basis of Grampanchayat resolution No.63. Earlier the property was standing in the name of Shankarlal but whereabouts of Shankarlal were not knowing for 15 years and plaintiff claimed her possession over the plot for 10 years and for the purpose of recovery of taxes name of the plaintiff was entered. No notice was given to legal representatives of Shankarlal or to the defendant before entering name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not explain how else she got title of the property other than Grampanchayat resolution. Both Courts after going through the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that the defendant is co-owner of the property. Earlier father of defendant Jairam had martgaged the suit plot for Rs.3000/- to Shankarlal, however, the amount was re-paid. In the facts and ( 3 ) circumstances of the case the appellant is not entitled to injunction, as prayed. The plaintiff is not entitled to make construction on the plot that would amount to ouster of other co-owners. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken proper view of the evidence and rightly rejected the prayer for injunction. In this view of the matter, this appeal cannot be admitted, as no substantial question of law is raised. Hence, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa1440.04