1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 594 of 2006 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri V.M. Maney, Advocate, for appellants. 1. This second appeal is preferred by original plaintiffs, whose suit bearing R.C.S. No.38 OF 1999 was dismissed by Trial Court so also by First Appellate Court, mainly holding that the property as described after amendment in the plaint, was not proved to be the property of the plaintiffs' ownership. We find necessary discussion in paragraph 16 of the judgment of trial court and paragraphs 15 onwards of the first 2 appellate court judgment. 2. As per original plaint, plaintiffs claimed ownership over plot ad-measuring 55 ft. east-west and 90 ft. north-south bearing house No. 22 situated at village Keli Tanda Taluka Aundha. The trial court observed that even defendants did not deny that plaintiffs are the owners of plot ad-measuring 55 ft.x 90 ft. Thereafter, Court Commissioner was sent to the spot and after his report, plaint came to be amended and the plaintiffs claimed that their plot admeasures 91 ft east west and 141 ft. north-south. 3. In paragraph 16 of its judgment, the first appellate court referred to loose stone wall between the houses of appellant and defendant, bearing numbers 6 and 7. Admittedly, the said stone wall was constructed by plaintiffs as compound wall. Now, he wants to claim property even beyond 3 the compound wall constructed by him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the plot of the appellants was of the size of 91 ft east-west and 141 ft. north-south, both courts refused to grant injunction. 4. In fact, no independent evidence is produced on record to show the measurements. Even the map drawn by court commissioner does not show the loose stone wall. Learned counsel for the appellant was fair enough to provide me a copy of map for perusal. 5. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and the first appellate court, it is evident that both the courts did not commit any error in not trusting case of the appellants that they are owners and possessors of plot admeasuring 91 ft. east-west and 141 ft. north- south. In this view of the matter, appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. There are 4 concurrent findings of fact. Hence, Second appeal dismissed at admission stage. Date:17/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa594.06