1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 10/2009 (Ramu Manga Chouke VERSUS Shankarrao Ramchandra Rakdey (dead) thr. Lrs. Smt.Lankabai Radke & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who has lost in both the Courts. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner and the possessor of an open space described as courtyard and marked as Letters 'BCDE' in the plaint map. It was the case of the plaintiff that the said courtyard was a part and parcel of his ancestral house bearing house no.150. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant had 2 no right, title and interest over the courtyard in question but, he had unauthorizedly opened a door in the wall of his house and had started obstructing the possession of the plaintiff over the said courtyard. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. It was pleaded by the defendant that the door D2 was an old door and the defendant had not opened the same recently. It was pleaded that the courtyard was a part and parcel of the house purchased by the defendant in the year 1966 by a registered sale-deed. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership over the suit property. The Court held that the plaintiff had further failed to prove that the defendant was causing obstruction and interference 3 in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the courtyard. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment passed by the trial Court was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Both the Courts recorded a clear finding of fact that the oral and documentary evidence on record showed that the courtyard was a part and parcel of the house of the defendant and was in possession of the defendant, continuously. The Courts further recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the courtyard was a part and parcel of his ancestral house and he was in exclusive possession of the same. The Courts considered the registered sale-deed dated 16.05.1966, which showed that the defendant was the owner of the suit property. The Courts also considered the documents at Exhs.99 and 100, which 4 showed that the defendant had sought permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction on the suit plot and had also informed the Sarpanch of the village about the purchase of the house. The Courts further considered the evidence of the plaintiff, specially in his cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he had agreed to purchase the house of the original defendant and subsequently the agreement of sale executed between the parties was cancelled. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE