Bombay High Court
Rupsing Supadu Pardeshi vs Namdev Govinda Patil on 1 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27558
1 sa360.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 SECOND APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2023
RUPSING SUPADU PARDESHI
VERSUS
NAMDEV GOVINDA PATIL
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. N. V. Dhake h/f. Mr. Wani Girish V.
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Jadhav Samadhan H.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3155 OF 2023
IN SA/360/2023
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 01.10.2025
PER COURT:
1. Heard.
2. The Second Appeal arises against the Judgment of the
appellate court confirming the decree of the trial court granting
declaration and permanent injunction against the present
appellant.
3. In brief the case of the plaintiffs is that they own the
suit property as mentioned in the plaint and that the defendants do
not have the right of easement over their land. In the suit following
prayers were made:
2 sa360.2023
"१२) तरी वादीची विनंती की,
अ) सदर प्रतिवादी नं.२ व ३ यांनी केलेले आदेश बेकायदा व चुकीचे असल्याचे
जाहिर करण्यात येऊन वादीवर बंधनकारक नाही असा आदेश करण्यात यावा.
ब) सदर प्रतिवादी नं.१ चा वहिवाट रस्ता वादी यांचे शेत गट नंबर १०/१, १०/३
व गट नं.९/२/अ/१, ९/२/अ/२ मधील बांधाने व पुढे गट नं .८/३ चे दक्षिणेकडील
पश्चिम-पुर्व बांधाने व पुढे डावीकडे वळु न उत्तरेकडे दक्षिण-उत्तर बांधाने वहिवाटीचा
रस्ता नाही असे जाहिर करण्यात यावे.
क) सदर प्रतिवादी नं.१ यांनी वादी यांचे शेतगटातुन अथवा बांधावरुन नविन
वहिवाट तयार करु नये व सदर वादीचे शेत गटातुन अथवा बांधावरुन शेत गट नं .७
मध्ये जाण्यासाठी वापर करु नये व पिकाचे नुकसान करु नये असा निरंतर मनाई
हुकूम देण्यात यावा.
ड) या दाव्याचा संपूर्ण खर्च प्रतिवादीकडु न देण्यात यावा.
इ) इतर न्यायाचे व हिताचे हुकूम वादीचे लाभांत व्हावेत."
and, following points were framed for determination:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1) Whether plaintiffs proves that Affirmative
permanent easementary ways
from both sides are available to
defendant No.1 to reach at Gut
No.7 ?
2) Whether plaintiffs prove that the Affirmative
order passed by defendant Nos.2
and 3 are nto binding on them as
it is illegal ?
3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to Affirmative
get relief of permanent injunction
as prayed ?
4) What order and decree ? As per final
order
5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for Affirmative
relief of declaration ?
and, thereafter, the suit is decreed and following order
is passed:
3 sa360.2023
" :: O R D E R ::
i) Suit is decreed with cost
ii) Defendant No.1 is hereby permanently restrained from making
new easementary way from the bandhs of plaintiff's fields and
from using plaintiff's fields or bandh to reach in the Gut No.7.
iii) It is hereby declared that order passed by defendant No.2 and
defendant No.3 are not binding on plaintiffs.
iv) It is hereby declared that there is no easementary way to
defendant No.1 to reach at Gat No.7 from bandh of Gut No. 10/1,
10/3, 9/2/A/1, 9/2/A/2, further from northern east - west bandh
of Gat No. 8/3 and further from left side northern south- north
bandh.
v) This order will be effective after two month from the date of
passing of this order.
vi) Defendant No.1 is at liberty to apply before defendant No.2
(Tahsildar) for proceeding in respect of closed boundary.
vii) Decree be drawn accordingly."
4. In the appeal preferred, the appellate court has also
maintained the order passed by the trial court.
5. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the
proceeding before this court another application is filed seeking
different access to the petitioner's land. The present petitioner
along with others has sought access to their land under Section 5 of
the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. The same has been granted by
the Mamlatdar and there is no challenge to the order passed by the
Mamlatdar.
4 sa360.2023
6. Be that as it may, in the present proceeding, the
appellant has not been able to demonstrate any substantial
question of law arising from the proceeding and he has raised the
questions of law as under:
"SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW-
VIII) Whether the courts below have appreciated the
evidence as regards closure of the road due to back water of
the Dam in its proper perspective.
IX) Whether the court below have considered the case
putforth by the present appellant about the existence of
road.
X) Whether the easementary right as claimed by the
present appellant has been properly appreciated.
XI) Whether the learned lower court has considered the
provisions under section 48 of the Specific Reliefs Act in the
facts and circumstances of the present case."
7. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to
how the question of law has arisen in the present second appeal.
None of the above questions are substantial questions of law.
8. Considering the same, no case is made out for
interference. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. In view of
dismissal of the Second Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
marathe
