1 S.A. No. 512.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 512 OF 2010 Shaikh Ganibhai Chandbhai .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sau. Lilabai Madanlal Pipada ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri K.M. Nagar, Advocate h/f R.N. Bhapkar, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.S. Sawant, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th November, 2010. PER COURT : Heard Shri Nagarkar, learned Counsel holding for Shri Bhapkar, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri A.S. Sawant, leraned Counsel for the respondent. This is defendants Second Appeal. The Original plaintiff had filed suit for injunction against the present appellant restraining them from obstructing the peaceful possession and cultivation of the plaintiff over the suit property at the southern side. The Trial Court dismissed suit, the defendant preferred an 2 S.A. No. 512.10 appeal, the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Nagarkar, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has not proved that the plaintiff has dug the said well in dispute. The defendant has his own well in the suit land, and has also proved the same by examining the officer from M.S.E.B. The learned Counsel further contended that the plaintiff is illegally claiming right over the said well which is in the property owned by the defendant. According to the learned Counsel the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Just because the entry of the well is not shown in the 7/12 extracts that does not mean that the defendant has no well in his field. The defendant has taken Bagayat crops which shows that there is a source of irrigation. 3. Per contra, Shri Sawant, learned 3 S.A. No. 512.10 Counsel for the respondent submitted that the 7/12 extract shows the existence of three wells in the field of plaintiff. The defendant is an adjacent field owner, even the defendant has admitted that plaintiff owns three wells in his land. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts. The defendant has admitted that there are three wells in the field of the plaintiff. The defendant has relied on the measurement map which has not been proved as has been observed by the Court below in his Judgment. The cadestryal surveyor is not examined. The Courts have taken into consideration the admission of the defendant No. 1 and long standing entries in the 7/12 extract at Exh. 33 for coming to the conclusion that there are three wells situated in the land of the plaintiff. The other evidence also supports this fact. The defendant could not prove the electricity supply given by the Department is available in the field of the defendant bearing Survey No. 27-4/A. In absence of any evidence in 4 S.A. No. 512.10 that regard, no error can be found in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 11191 of 2010 does not not survive, the same is accordingly disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 512.10SA