1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2008 Shri Bharat Waman Shelar ... Appellant (Orig. Defendant) Vs. Sakharam Bhiva Mali ... Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) Ms. Gauri Godse, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Joshi, i/b Mr. S.M.Oak, Advocates, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The plaintiff/respondent, who claims to be the owner of land Gat no.283/3 situated at Murbad, had filed the suit for removal of encroachment by the 2 defendant-appellant and for possession of a piece of land admeasuring about 25’ x 25’. According to him, the defendant had made encroachment on his land Gat No.283/3 to the extent of 25’ x 25’ for making construction over the house. The defendant however contended that he had made the construction on the land bearing Gat No.283/1 belonging to his distant uncle. The land was got measured by the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and rejected the contention of the defendant. Against the judgment and decree passed bythe trial Court, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.113 of 2002. That appeal was also dismissed. The concurrent finding of fact was given by both the Courts that the defendant had encroached upon the area of 25’ x 25’ from the land survey No.283/3 belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant has filed the Second Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly placed reliance upon the admission of PW-2 Hirachand, Surveyor of the land,in which he had stated that a particular piece of land is unnumbered land and belongs to the Government. However, there is no record to support the statement of Hirachand, who had in fact made a statement that there is a construction work on Gat NO.283/3. There is concurrent finding of fact by 3 both the Courts below that the defendant had made encroachment on the land Gat No.283/3 belonging to the plaintiff. It was not even the case of the defendant that he had constructed on the Government land. His contention was that the construction was on land Gat No.283/1 belonging to his distant uncle which he could not prove. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. 4. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)