(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2005 1. Smt. Kalawati Valu Ambekar, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Akole (Nawalewadi), District : Ahmednagar. 2. Chandrakant Valu Ambekar, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Business, .. Appellants R/o. Nawalewadi, (Original Taluka : Akole, plaintiffs) District : Ahmednagar. versus 1. Vitthal Bhimaji Gaikwad, Age : 74 years. 2. Late Satyabhamabai Vitthal Gaikwad, Since deceased through her L.Rs. : 2(a) Vitthal Bhimaji Gaikwad, Age : 81 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Subhash Road, Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2(b) Anil Vitthal Gaikwad, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Subhash Road, Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. (2) 2(c) Eknath Vitthal Gaikwad, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Subhash Road, Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2(d) Puspha Shantaram Jamdhade, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Household, C/o. Sitaram Bhimaji Jamdhade, Maharashtra House Board, Samtanagar, House no. 2012, Satpur, Dist. Nasik. 2(e) Mirabai Bhausaheb Randhe, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Akole (Nawalewadi), Dist. Ahmednagar. 2(f) Tarabai Mahadev Thanekar, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. At post Sawergaon, Tal. Junner, Dist. Pune. 2(g) Babe Dinkar Raut, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Shiv Shakti Colony, Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 2(h) Mangal Vilas Wagle, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Household, C/o. Vitthal Bhimaji Gaikwad, R/o. Subhash Road, Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. (3) 3. Mrs. Vatsalabai Anant Gaikwad, Age : 55 years. 4. Mrs. Mirabai Bhausaheb Randhe, Age : 51 years, 5. Anil Vithal Gaikwad, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Service. .. Respondents (Original Respondent nos.1 and 3 to 5, defendants) R/o. Nawalewadi, Taluka : Akole, District : Ahmednagar. ....................... Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Respondent nos.2A to 2H served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, extensively. (4) 2. The concurrent findings against the plaintiff are questioned in the Second Appeal. 3. Mr. L.V. Sangit, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, would argue, the substantial question of law is, "whether the learned Tahsildar could have in terms of Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, carved out or decided about existence of right of way to the defendant, the subsequent purchaser of a small piece of land ?" 4. The plaintiff is an earlier purchaser of 10 Gunthas of land. While the defendant is subsequent purchaser of small piece of land. A xerox copy of the sale deed of plaintiff's purchase, indicated, as observed by the learned first appellate court in paragraph 12, that there existed right retained by the vendee to go through the said plot i.e. the plot sold to the plaintiff. Consequently, the first appellate court rightly found that the right of way was retained from plot of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed that his right was obstructed, he filed the suit. The approach by the defendant to the revenue authorities, in the fact situation, could not be said to be a totally no vice. 5. The interpretation provided by Mr. L.V. Sangit, (5) learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, to Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, "other survey number" will not be allowed to be coined to distract that the division in the same agricultural field could not come within the sweep of Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The nature of purchase and description of the property unmistakably demonstrate, though it was having a non- agricultural potentiality, but it did not change its status till the learned Tahsildar passed orders "as an agricultural field". Consequently, I do not find, any substantial question of law, as projected by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, could be formulated. 6. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa506