IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2010 Vishnu Ranu Lokhande (Mali) .. Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) Vs. Naganath Sopan Lokhande (Mali) & ors . ..Respondents (Orig.Defendants) Mr.S.S.Shah for Appellant None for Defendant CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATE :NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) who filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent nos. 1 to 3. They are contesting defendants. Respondent nos. 3,4,and 5 are brothers and sisters of the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit against defendant nos. 1 to 3 that they are creating a new road from Gat No.1260 (old survey No.155) of village Ropale Taluka Pandharpur District Solapur. The Cause of action arose sometime in January, 2000 on the apprehension that the defendant nos.1 to 3 are creating a new road on the western side. Thus,the dispute is about a road which is towards the western side. Admittedly, there is a cart-track along the western side of Gat No.1260 belonging to plaintiff for going to Ropale- Tungat Road. The matter appears to be hotly contested both in the trial Court and in the first Appellate Court. There are concurrent findings recorded against the appellant/plaintiff. Court commissioner was also appointed by the trial court as seen from the report of the court commissioner and a map drawn by the Taluka Inspector of land records is also at Exhibit 88. There is a detailed discussion in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Appellate court which covers the real dispute between the parties over the impugned road. It is categorically held that there is a cart- track in the western portion of the suit land which not only the defendant nos 1,2 and 3 are using but, it is open for public at large. There is no dispute about respective possession and enjoyment of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and land belonging to the appellant. Thus, from the record it is seen that there is nothing adverse against respondent nos.1 to 3 that they are obstructing or disturbing possession of the plaintiff over Gat No.1260 on the western portion as alleged. 2. After going through the judgments of both trial court and the Appellate court, no perversity is found. No substantial question of law is made out by the appellant (Original plaintiff) in Second Appeal. No interference is therefore, called for. Second Appeal dismissed summarily. N.D.DESHPANDE, J