(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 863 OF 2008 Abbas s/o. Jammam Shaikh, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Service, R/o. Munshi Plot, Omerga, .. Appellant Taluka : Omerga, (Original District : Osmanabad. defendant) versus Zahirabee s/o. Khawajbhai Attar, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Munshi Plot, Omerga, .. Respondent Taluka : Omerga, (Original District : Osmanabad. plaintiff) ....................... Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6TH MAY 2010 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. Regular Civil Suit No. 175/1997 for relief of perpetual injunction came to be dismissed. The matter was taken before the learned Additional District Judge, Omerga, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 177/2004, and the learned first appellate court set aside the order of dismissal in Regular Civil Suit No. 175/1997 and the suit was decreed, directing the defendant not to cause any obstruction and interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the disputed site. The original defendant, Abbas, feels aggrieved and questioned the same in the Second Appeal. 3. On analyzing the finding recorded by the first appellate court, which is a fact finding court, also, I find, the learned Judge justifiably accepted ownership of the plaintiff over the area of 4 feet X 36 feet and the ditch thereof having purchased by virtue of a sale deed dated 6-6-1997. The evidence of Noruddin at Exhibit 44 illustrate that the disputed site is in use and enjoyment of the plaintiff as owner. This is even supported by PW 2 Sunil. The respondent, Abbas, has accepted in the cross examination, that the plaintiff has forcefully took western door and at ditch water tap. Thus, he (3) indeed accepted possession of the plaintiff. The entries in the extract of revision register, Exhibit 7, supported the case of the plaintiff. The finding recorded by the first appellate court, against the defendant, flow in tune with the evidence and record, which does not warrant any interference. 4. The Second Appeal sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa863