1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 442 OF 2010 Shri Nagorao S/o Ganpatrao Patange .. APPELLANT VERSUS Laxmibai W/o Narayandas Pawar & another .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri Patnurkar, Advocate h/f A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: Heard, Shri Patnurkar, learned Counsel h/f Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant. The defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. Both the Courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, wherein plaintiff claimed injunction restraining the defendants /present appellants from causing obstruction in 4 feet East-West way in disputed plot No. 32 . 2 2. The original owner of the plot was one Mirabai, she sold the part of plot No. 32 to the present plaintiff and the remaining to one Shri Bhagwan Shinde, and thereafter, said Bhagwan Shinde and his brother sold the property purchased by them to the present appellant. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff has right to use the said 4 feet wide passage. 3. Shri Patnurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that if the title document of present appellant are perused, it is clear that the whole of the remaining plot was purchased by them and the said sale-deed no where recite about the reservation of the said 4 feet wide passage for the plaintiff. According to Shri Patnurkar, when the title documents do not specify, in such circumstances, the appellant would not be bound by what is stated in the sale-deed of the plaintiff. According to him, the courts below have not properly appreciated this aspect. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, I have gone through 3 the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. It is fact that the sale-deed in favour of the present plaintiff was executed by Mirabai in the year 1989. In the said sale-deed, it was specifically stated that the plaintiff would be entitled to use 4 feet wide passage, remaining area of plot No. 32 was sold to Bhagwan Shinde and others, from to whom the present appellant purchased the said property. Though, the said instrument does not recite about the right of the plaintiff to use the said 4 feet wide passage, that would not affect right of the plaintiff as already said right was granted to the plaintiff by the Meerabai who admittedly was owner of the whole plot NO. 32. Said Mirabai has also stepped into the witness box and supported the case of the plaintiff. When once original owner had reserved the right of the said 4 feet wide passage in favour of the plaintiff, then in such circumstances, the subsequent purchasers of the remaining portion i.e. the appellant cannot have right to make any grievance. The Courts have considered this aspect in its proper perspective. 4 5. In the light of the above, no substantial question is involved in this Second Appeal. As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 442.10 SA