1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.440 OF 2006 Ibrahim Khan s/o Hussain Khan, deceased through L.Rs. & others Appellants Versus Dilawar Khan s/o Amir Khan, deceased through L.Rs. & others Respondents Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.N.Kalani, advocate for Respondents No.6 & 7. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 10 th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal raising exception to the judgment delivered by Ist Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Parbhani on 02.01.2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No.231/2001, thereby the first appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of appellants – original plaintiffs. 2 In the suit presented by plaintiffs, being Regular Civil Suit No. 10/2000, relief in respect of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of well situate in land G.No.504 has been claimed. It is the contention of plaintiffs that they are in exclusive possession of the disputed property and defendants has no entitlement in relation to the disputed property, however, they are causing disturbance to the 2 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in relation to the said well. The plaintiffs, as such, seek decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against defendants. 3 According to the defendants, suit well does not exclusively belong to the plaintiffs, but it belongs to family of plaintiffs and defendants. There are entries in the revenue record, in that regard, taken since long. 4 The trial Court, after considering evidence of the parties, found favour with the case of plaintiffs and granted decree, as prayed for, by judgment and decree dated 24.09.2001. 5 Original defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, approached the appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.231/2001, which came to be heard and disposed of by Ist Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Parbhani, who was pleased to allow same by judgment and decree dated 02.01.2006. 6 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. It has been observed by the first appellate Court that in the 7/12 extracts for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the well in question is recorded in the name of Gulabkhan (father of defendant no.4), Amirkhan (father of defendant no.1) and Ibrahimkhan (plaintiff no.1). A separate Gat Number `567’ was allotted to the portion admeasuring 4 ares comprising of suit well and same is shown in the name of Gulab Khan, Amirkhan and Ibrahimkhan. Thus, entries prior to framing scheme of 3 consolidation shows that the well is common amongst plaintiff and defendants. The long standing entries for 28 years have remained unchallenged. Considering this aspect, the first appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court. I do not find any error in the reasons recorded by the first appellate Court. The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellants are essentially matters in respect of appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa44006