1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 71/2007 (Prabhakar Dajiba Bansod (Patil) VERSUS Pandurang Narayanrao Yelne ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Mardikar, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Amol Deshpande h/f Mr. Mirza, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from erecting a hut on the approach way to the house of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. According to the defendant, the hut was constructed by him on the approach way 9 to 10 years prior to the institution of the suit. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the defendant sought the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence tendered by both the parties, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that before filing of the suit, the defendant was intending to make encroachment from eastern 2 side on the open plot which was in possession of the plaintiff. After temporary mandatory injunction was granted by the trial Court restraining the defendant from making any construction, the trial Court observed that the defendant had constructed a hut on the plot which was on the eastern side of the plot of the plaintiff in breach of the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Since the Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the plot which had an approach road from the eastern side, the defendant was not entitled to obstruct the way of the plaintiff by erecting a hut on the eastern side of the plaintiff's plot. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and since the defendant had constructed the hut during the pendency of the suit, the defendant was directed to remove the hut which was erected on the eastern side road of the plot which was in possession of the plaintiff. A permanent prohibitory injunction was also granted by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld by the first appellate Court. The appellate Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant had illegally constructed a hut on the eastern side road of the plaintiff's plot, though he was prohibited from making construction on the same by an interlocutory order. Both the Courts have, after due and proper 3 consideration of the evidence on record, recorded a clear finding of fact to the effect that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his possession over the plot and the defendant was making illegal construction on the eastern side way to the plaintiff's property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact 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