1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 168/2010 (Dongardas Jaynarayan Rathi VERSUS Shri Gaurakshan Sansthan, thr. President Gaurakshan Sansthan & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anup Dhore, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 21, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant in the suit property which belongs to the respondent Sansthan. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Sansthan from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and committing some acts which may cause deterioration or demolition of the suit premises. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that they obstructed the plaintiff from using the suit property. According to the defendants, the apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff, that the defendants would demolish the property adjacent to the suit premises and that would automatically cause demolition of the suit 2 premises, was imaginary. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the premises as pleaded by him. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants were likely to demolish the room adjacent to the suit premises. The Courts held that the plaintiff also failed to prove that the demolition of the property adjacent to the suit premises would automatically cause demolition of the suit premises. The Courts, therefore, refused to grant a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff as according to both the Courts, the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that the defendants-trust had obstructed the right of the plaintiff of enjoyment of the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE