(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 154 OF 2010. Smt. Chhayadevi Arunkumar Yadav VERSUS Govind Narayan Bansilal Agrawal. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 21.01.2011. Heard Ms. Radhika A. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P.A. Abhyankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal no.456/2007 by the learned Adhoc District Judge-4, Nagpur thereby confirming the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1594/1989 dated 09.08.2007. The bone of contention in the above proceeding is an open area of about 5 feet. The genesis of the dispute lies in a partition, which had taken place amongst the (2) family members of the plaintiff, by which 1/14th portion was granted to the predecessors in title of the respondent herein. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has right of way through the said open portion of 5 feet to the West High Court road. The learned Trial Court framed a issue to the following effect : “3. Does the plaintiff proves that there is existence of disputed open space as access ?” The trial Court has in terms answered the issue by recording a finding that the suit portion had come to the share of the predecessor in title of the respondent herein i.e. the defendant to the said suit and that the plaintiff had failed to prove by cogent evidence that the said open space of 5 feet is an access to her property. The suit thereafter came to be dismissed. Against the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The Appellate Court has confirmed the said decree passed by the trial Court and thereby confirmed the said finding. However, the Appellate Court in paragraph no.15 of its judgment has recorded a finding that there is an approach road to the plaintiff towards the Southern side of the property in question, and therefore, the case of the plaintiff that the said open space was the (3) only access available to her, could not be accepted. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact as regards the ownership as also the right of way, and have recorded the said findings against the plaintiff. In my view, considering the decrees passed by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd