Aurangabad.
43 of 2005.
332 of 2007 which arises out of judgment and order dated 11.04.2007 passed by the District Judge 3, Aurabgabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
332 of 2007 before the High Court.
The High Court admitted the second appeal on two substantial questions of law arising in the case.
The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being S.A. No.
The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being R.C.A. No.
43 of 2005 before the District Judge 3, Aurangabad.
The respondents joined issues and companytested the suit by filing written statement.
The appellant sought a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land bearing numberGat No.
It is against this judgment, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by way of special leave.
The Trial Court framed several issues arising out of the pleadings and parties led their evidence.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal which lie in a narrow companypass, few relevant facts need mention infra.
14 of 2001 for declaration and perpetual injunction.
By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents herein.
9 admeasuring 4 H 90 R situated at Village Ghosala, Taluka Soegaon, Dist.
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents defendants herein in the Court of Civil Judge junior Division Soyagaon being Regular Civil Suit No.
The Trial Court vide judgment decree dated 14.12.2004 dismissed the suit.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The appellant also sought injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in his possession.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Second Appeal No.
Vide judgment decree dated 11.04.2007, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the appellants suit by granting the decree as prayed by him.
By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal and in companysequence dismissed the appellants suit.
