1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 609 OF 2010 Arjun Mahadeo Zure & ors ........Appellants versus Gangaram Atmaram Zure & ors........Respondents. Mr. S. Sakhare with S.P. Kharge adv. for the Appellants. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh adv. for the Respondents 1 to 3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 2nd September, 2010. P.C.: 1. 1. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Civil Suit No. 38/01 dated 15-12-2003 thereby decreeing the suit and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal no. 8/04. thereby dismissing the appeal. 2. Mr. Kharge the learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below had erred in not framing the necessary issues regarding the encroachment and as such the substantial question of law arises for consideration. 3. Mr. Deshmukh the learned counsel for the respondent has vehementally opposed the appeal. 2 4. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming that the appellant/defendant had encroached upon 32R land in ghat no.52 owned by the plaintiff. On finding that the plaintiff had encroached upon the suit premises a decree for possession of the said 32R has been passed by the learned trial court. 5. It is the contention of the appellant that necessary issue regarding as to whether the appellants were entitled to retain the said land on the ground of settled adverse possession, ought to have been framed by the learned trial court. Perusal of the concurrent finding would reveal that though it was the specific contention of the present appellant that they were in settled possession, the learned trial court on the basis of evidence led before it, has held that the defendants have failed to prove their contention and the evidence led by the parties would not establish the contention in that regard. The said finding of fact on reappreciation of the evidence have been upheld by the appellate court. 6. After framing of the issue by the trial court, the appellants have not taken any steps for framing the issue which according to them ought to have been framed. 7. In that view of he matter I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, nothing 3 survives in the civil application and the same is also dismissed. 9. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant requests for continuation of the ad-interim relief for a further period of four weeks. The said prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent. 10. Since the interim relief is operating since 29-7-2010 the same shall continue further for a period of four weeks from today. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)