1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 64/2010 (Babbubhai Dangubhai Sayyed (Dead) thr. Julkha wd/o Babbubhai Sayyed & others VERSUS Vasanta Bana Tembhekar & others) AND Second Appeal No. 65/2010 (Babbubhai Dangubhai Sayyed (Dead) thr. Julkha wd/o Babbubhai Sayyed & others VERSUS Mamta Vijay Ganvir & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Shri C.S. Kaptan, counsel for the R-(i) to (iv) in S.A. No.64/2010 and for R-1 & 2 in S.A. No. 65/2010. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2010 . Since common question of facts are involved in both these second appeals and these second appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in the suits filed by the respondents and the appellants, the same are heard together at the time of admission and are decided by this common order. The appellants are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.69/1999. It was the case of the appellants in the said suit that the respondents were trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and, therefore, 2 they sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from doing so. The respondents also filed Regular Civil Suit No.4/2002 for removal of encroachment and possession. It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.4/2002 that the present appellants had encroached upon 68 square meters of their house property and 7.5 square meters of plot of land. Common evidence was tendered in both the suits and both the suits were decided by the trial Court by a common judgment. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants and decreed the suit filed by the respondents for removal of encroachment. The appeals filed by the present appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were dismissed by the first appellate Courts. It is the case of the appellants that the Courts ought to have dismissed the suit filed by the respondents as the respondents had not filed any map on record and the land was not measured by a T.I.L.R. or a Government Surveyor. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts, it 3 appears that both the Courts have considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record to hold that the appellants had encroached upon the land of the respondents. The land was measured by the respondents through a surveyor and the measurement made by the surveyor were proved by the evidence of the Surveyor- Dashrath. It was found by both the Courts that when Dashrath carried out the measurements, appellant-Babbubhai was present along with several other persons. The Courts observed that the measurement was done as per the plane table method and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents supported the evidence of the respondents. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issues involved in the case are pure findings of facts based on the proper appreciation of the material on record. It is further necessary to note that the appellants had never applied before the trial Court for getting the land measured through a T.I.L.R. The unreported judgment of this Court dated 7th of December, 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.493/2009 is, therefore, of no assistance to the case of the appellants. 4 Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE