3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1714 OF 2005 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate, holding for Shri K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellant. 1. This is a second appeal filed by original plaintiff, whose suit for perpetual injunction in respect of small plot admeasuring 11.6’x10’ was dismissed by learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed, on 27.7.2002, which judgment and order is further confirmed by learned II Adhoc Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 2002 decided on 25.7.2005. 3 2. Both the courts have held that the plot in dispute is a open space. Both the courts have also come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over it. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s possession over suit plot is not duly established. Property was shown in the name of Respondent in the city survey record. The burden is on plaintiff to prove his title and possession to the suit plot. Merely showing that there was no sufficient evidence led by defendant or he had not obtained permission of grampanchayat while constructing wall, which had fallen down is not enough to believe plaintiff’s case that he is owner and possessor of the property. Ultimately, it is a matter which is to be decided after considering evidence adduced by rival parties. It cannot be said 3 that the judgment of the trial court or first appellate court is perverse. It is not a case where inadmissible piece of evidence is considered or admissible piece of evidence is not considered. 3. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. Date:13.07.2009 [P.R.BORKAR,J.] pnd/sa1714.05