KESHAV VITHOBA KHATDEO Vs. GUMPHABAI GOPALRAO MUNDARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal was not board. However, Appeal From Order No.99/2013 is on today's admission board at Sr. No.22. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, commenced her arguments on A. O. No.99/2013 and during the course of hearing it was noticed that the result of this A.O. depends fully upon the result of Second Appeal No.426/99. That being so, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, present A. O. as well as S. A. were posted for final hearing and disposal at 2.30 p.m. and accordingly both the appeals have been heard together.

(2.) Since result of A.O. No.99/2013 depends on the result of S.A.No. 426/1999, I have taken the said appeal for hearing and disposal first. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law will have to be reframed since the question of law framed on 20.12.2001 in the light of the arguments advanced before me do not arise. Hence, following substantial questions of law are reframed:

(3.) Perused the impugned judgments recorded by the courts below. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. It is not in dispute that none of the parties relied on any revenue documentary evidence for showing the way over Dhura of survey no.28 belonging to the appellantsplaintiffs. Since according to the plaintiffs, there was no such right of way over Dhura there was no question of plaintiffs bringing on record any such revenue entries or revenue records but then the courts below have criticised the appellantsplaintiffs for claiming negative declaration. When it was the case of the plaintiffs that there was no way over Dhura of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs obviously required an order of injunction against the defendants which cannot be described as 'negative declaration'. Be that as it may.