1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.74 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.74 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.74 OF 2007 Smt.Khatunbai Babu Daryavardi & Ors. .. Appellant V/s. Abdul Rahim Isub Daryavardi (Deceased-through Legal heirs) .. Opponent Mr.P.J.Pawar for the Appellantd. Mr.A.R.S.Baxi for Respondent Nos.1(ii) to 1(vi), 2 & 3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This second appeal is filed against the Judgment and order dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangli by which the Appeal filed by the Respondents herein came to be allowed and resultently the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for removal of encroachment and possession of the encroached portion and for permanent injunction came to be dismissed. 2. The Appellant herein are the original Plaintiff 2 who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 379 of 1988 for possession of the encroached area in land bearing CTS No.8211 which was exclusively owned by the Plaintiff’s. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the suit land has been purchased by the Plaintiffs by sale deed executed in the year 1982. The Plaintiffs therefore prayed for eviction of the Respondents from the suit land. The Respondents herein who were the Defendants in the said suit set up the defence of adverse possession. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that has before it arrived at a conclusion that the Respondents/Defendants have encroached upon the property and therefore directed the eviction of the said Respondents/Defendants from the premises in question. The case of the Defendants of adverse possession was not accepted by the trial Court. 4. The matter was carried in Appeal by the Defendants. The said Appeal came to be allowed. The Appellate Court though accepted the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards adverse possession came to a conclusion that the relief of removal of encroachment could not be granted. The Appellate Court observed that the Plaintiffs have not mentioned the total area 3 of the said survey No.8211, the extent of the encroachment was also not mentioned. The Appellate Court also drew adverse inference for the non production of the sale deed. The Appellate Court therefore set aside the decree which has passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has recorded findings of fact based on the material that was before it. 5. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal raises no substantial question of law, the Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.)