1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2007 Gopichand Gobru Nikhar vs. Smt. Yamunabai @ Mungabai S. Bhardwaj Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 23, 2008. Heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant. He states that in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Kashinath vs. Haribhau, reported at 2004 (2) Mh. L.J. 722, the issue whether there is encroachment or not ought to have been decided only after obtaining report of Surveyor. Both the lower Courts are against the present appellant. The appellate Court has found that plaintiff alleged that there was encroachment In August 2000 but did not lead any evidence on these lines. The appellate Court has also found that while leading evidence, the plaintiff changed his stand from previous possession and dispossession to one that of establishing title. It has also referred 2 to pleadings of plaintiff that defendant forceably erected a thorny fencing and barbed wire fencing. There is no evidence adduced by plaintiff in this respect. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel contends that the defendant has accepted that she never measured field after the purchase. However, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that there was any encroachment or also to compute the period of limitation for the purposes of plaintiff's suit. The appellate Court has clearly held that plaintiff has failed to show any cause of question in his favour. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.