1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.488 OF 2004. Shrikant Bajirang Ashtekar and others ... Appellants. Versus Vasant Vasudev Satbhai and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for the appellants. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The appellants are the original defendants. The Respondents filed suit for removal of encroachment/possession of an area of 2 12x25 ft. on the ground that the defendants have encroached over the suit area of the land owned by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 7x5 fts. 2. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel for the appellants contend that when both the Courts have come to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not in a position to prove the area encroached by the defendants then they have failed to discharge their initial burden. The defendants have come forward with a specific case that they are in possession of an area of 7x5 ft. as a tenants and the plaintiffs have nowhere denied this fact. 3. The case of the plaintiffs itself is that the defendants have encroached over their property. The plaintiffs were claiming encroachment to the extent of 12x25 fts. The defendants candidly admitted that they are in occupation of an area of 7x5 fts. but according to the defendants the said possession was as a tenant. The aspect of tenancy has not been proved 3 by the defendants. Both the Courts below have relied on statement of the defendants that they are in occupation of 7x5 fts. and on that basis passed the decree. As the defendants have admitted that they are in possession of an area of 7x5 ft. and they could not prove their source of possession i.e. the alleged tenancy. In such circumstances, plaintiff had absolute right as a owner to recover the possession of the said area. No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa488.04