: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.341 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1480 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1215 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2008 IN APPEAR FROM ORDER NO.341 OF 2008 Nanji B. Patel & Anr. ....Appellants V/s. Goswami S.G. Maharaj & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.G.S. Hegde with Mr.I.A. Shaikh for the Appellants. Mr.H. Devraj i/b M/s.Vimadalal & Co. for Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5. Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.N.V. Vimadalal i/b M/s. Vimadalal & Co. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. Even before this Court, the Appellants have not been able to adduce any evidence which indicates their possession of any portion of the land abutting two huts in their possession admeasuring 700 sq.ft. and : 2 : 423 sq.ft. respectively. In fact the evidence on record indicates that the Appellants had never been in possession of 29,000 sq. yards of open land which they now claim to be in possession of. 2. For instance in suit No.2149 of 1986 filed in this Court, the predecessors of the Appellants had never made a claim to 29,000 sq.yards. The Plaintiffs had categorically asserted that the predecessors of the Appellants were in possession of the said two huts. No written statement has been filed to date. Mr.Hegde however states that an affidavit had been filed by one of them contending that they were in possession of 13,794 sq.yards. Even assuming that such a contention was raised in the affidavit, there is nothing to substantiate the same. 3. In the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the claim of possession has been negatived at every stage. The finding of facts of the Sub Divisional Officer in his order dated 2.2.1987 is that the suit land was in possession of Defendant No.1 and that the Appellants had encroached upon the same and constructed the said huts. It is further found that the open land was in the possession of the Respondents. : 3 : 4. The huts were in the possession of the Respondents/Defendants. In the proceedings in the other suit also, it was observed by an order dated 11.9.1986 that an attempt was made to enter the names of the Appellants in the ‘pik pahani’ to create a frivolous record of adverse possession. Although the observations made pertain to Defendant No.3 in that suit, the finding is in respect of same report of the revenue authorities. 5. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil application is accordingly dismissed.