1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 170/2010 (Mrs. Sheela wd/o Shrikrishna Bonde VERSUS Seva Sahakari Society thr. Secretary Vijay S. Barhate) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Chandurkar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 21, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent Society for removal of encroachment by the appellant over the suit property and for possession thereof. The plaintiff pleaded that it was the owner of plot nos.1, 10 and 11 as shown in the plaint map and the defendant/appellant had encroached upon the portion shown by letters A, B, C & D in the plaint map. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit property was recorded in the name of the society in the Gram Panchayat record and the defendant had obstructed the possession of the plaintiff over the same and an encroachment was made by her over the suit property. 2 The defendant-appellant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that since she was a lady with handicap, the land was allotted to her by the Tahsildar. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved the various documents produced by the plaintiff on record. The defendant did not cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and also failed to examine any witness on her behalf. The defendant remained absent at the time of the arguments. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to remove the encroachment. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on consideration of the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court along with the necessary documents which were handed over to the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant for perusal, it appears that both the Courts did not commit any error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is necessary to note that the Assistant Registrar had issued a communication to the plaintiff-society that plot nos.1, 10 & 3 11 were handed over to the plaintiff society. The suit property was a part of plot no.1. It is also necessary to note from the documents that the plaintiff society was paying the tax in respect of the suit property and the name of the plaintiff society was shown as the owner and occupier in the relevant assessment list. There were several other documents produced by the plaintiff on record to prove its case. On the other hand, the defendant did not tender any evidence whatsoever to prove that the plot was allotted to her by the Tahsildar as she was a lady with handicap. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE