1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.360 OF 2009 Shamrao s/o Laxman Pande, R/o-Paradh (BK), Tq-Bhokardan, District-Jalana, and others. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS Sheshrao s/o Uttam Pande, R/o-Paradh (BK), Taluka-Bhokardan, Dist-Jalna, and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.A.S. Bayas Advocate for Appellants. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the Appellants. 2. Present Second Appeal preferred by the original 2 plaintiffs against the Judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.228 of 2007 dated 17th December, 2008 arising out of the Judgment and decree dated 25th October, 2007 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2004. 3. The Appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2004 for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents / original defendants from obstructing their exclusive use in respect of the well in Gut No.143. From the record it is clear that the said well was constructed after taking loan from the Bank. At the time of taking loan, old Survey No.65/2 was mortgaged. At that time the Appellants as well as Respondents were jointly in possession of Survey No.65/2. Both the Courts below held that Appellants failed to prove that the said well was constructed by their own source of income. 4. I have gone through the Judgments of both the Courts below. It is clear that the well was constructed by taking loan from the Bank after mortgaging the old Survey No.65/2 when the Appellants as well as the Respondents were jointly in possession of the said Survey Number. After consolidation scheme, Survey No.65/2 was numbered 3 as Gut Nos. 143, 144 and 145. Gut No.143 and 144 allotted to the Appellant and Gut No.145 is allotted to the Respondents. The disputed well is in Gut No.143. On the application of Appellants, the mutation entry No. 1281 is made by Revenue Officer and shown the well in respect of Gut No.143 and 144. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the Respondents have given consent for the said application and/or mutation entry No.1281. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below that Appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to show that they have exclusive right to use the water in respect of the dispute well. 6. Considering the facts mentioned herein above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal and the same is dismissed summarily with no order as to the costs. (K.K. TATED) JUDGE. asb/JUN09/sa360.09