: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.437 OF 2001 Narayan Budhaji Shelke, Decd., Thru’ Rohidas N. Shelke & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Khelya Ragho Ghase .. Respondent Mr. Vijay Gharat for the Appellants. Mrs. Anjali Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 15 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal arises from the order dated 26th September, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pen in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1986, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court i.e. District Court, Raigad by order dated 27th November, 2000, passed in Civil Appeal No.217 of 1994 by which the Suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. The defendant has been directed to deliver the possession of the encroached portion of 19.5 square meters, as shown in the map at Exhibit-59. The original defendant died during the pendency of the present Second Appeal. Hence, his heirs are brought on record. : 2 : 2. The main contentions raised by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants are : (i). that there was no description of the suit property in the plaint; (ii). that the evidence on record did not establish any encroachment by the appellants. 3. In my view, the first point raised regarding there being no description of the property in the plaint, is untenable. The plaint describes the suit property as Plot No.39, although the boundaries of that plot are not mentioned. In the case of Subhaga and Ors. vs. Shobha & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed that a property can be identified either by its boundaries or by any other specific description. In my view, the description mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as vague. : 3 : 4. As regards the encroachment, there is evidence on record of the surveyor, who was appointed, indicating that there was an encroachment. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present when the property was surveyed. No objections were raised by the defendant to this report of the surveyor before the Court. Both the Courts below have found that hte map drawn by the surveyor established the encroachment made by the defendant on the plaintiff’s property. 5. In my view, therefore, no case has been made out for admission of the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed.