1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 559 OF 1999 Saliyabi w/o Abbas Pathan & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Manohar /so Prabhu Burud & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri A.G. Dalal, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the appellants. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Osmanabad on 26-2-1999 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 209/90 whereby judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside by the first appellate court and the suit presented by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. 2 Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction in respect of part of the residential premises admeasuring 17 ft. X 25 ft. According to the plaintiffs, the premises owned by them consists of two parts; the first part admesuring 35 ft. X 30 ft and the second part admeasuring 17 ft. X 25 ft. It is contended that there is a public gymnasium adjacent to the suit house. The occupiers of the gymnasium / original 2 defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the second part of the premises admeasuring 17 ft. x 25 ft. As such, the plaintiffs have approached the court seeking prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Defendants have controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiffs by presenting written statement. According to them, the disputed property claimed by the plaintiffs is infact part of the public gymnasium and owned by the defendants. 3 Plaintiffs in order to establish their case have tendered ocular as well as documentary evidence. Trial court was satisfied with the case put up by the plaintiffs and as such granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Appellate court considering the appeal presented by the original defendants has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is contended by the original plaintiffs that Vasudeo has purchased the property from one Ranjit Raje by getting the sale-deed executed. In the sale-deed executed by Vasudeo, the disputed portion is shown to have been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the sale-deed executed in favour of Vasudeo by Ranjit Raje has not been placed on record. Apart from these aspects, the trial court has also observed that documents exh. 83 to 85 show that the application tendered by Vasudeo seeking construction permission for raising construction on the disputed plot was rejected by the Municipal Council. The cause for rejection has not been stated. However, the fact remains that the planning authority has refused to accord permission for raising construction over the disputed portion. It is not established by the plaintiff that their predecessor in title had infact title in respect of the disputed property. In the absence of such evidence, the 3 appellate court was justified in drawing an inference that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case regarding transfer of title of the disputed portion in their favour. The view adopted by the first appellate court cannot be said to be unreasonable. Questions raised in the appeal are essentially the matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa559.99.odt