IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2008 Pandurang Ramchandra Phadtare ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus Nagu Dhondi Phadtare Since deceased through his L.Rs. 1a) Popat Nagu Phadtare & Ors. Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. S.A.Sawant, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 30th August, 2008. DATE: 30th August, 2008. DATE: 30th August, 2008. P.C P.C P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. According to him, he had purchased the plot of land bearing Grampanchayat No.108, admeasuring east west 100’ and north south 60 feet. According to him, the defendant had committed encroachment on the area of 50’- 6" north south and 27’- 4" east west and made construction of a house on a portion of the encroached area. Therefore, he filed the suit for removal of encroachment 3. The defendants contested the suit and denied that there was any encroachment on the plaintiff’s area and that the defendants had constructed a house on the land of the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had made encroachment and the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.309 of 2002. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, he has filed the Second Appeal. 4. It appears that as per the sale deed executed by one Nagu in favour of the plaintiff in 1975, the plaintiff had purchased the plot admeasuring east west 130 feet and north south 65 feet. In his evidence, the plaintiff had claimed some area and deposed that defendants made encroachment. His vendor Nagu however deposed that he had sold the plot admeasuring 100’ x 60’. The Courts below noted that the vendor of the plaintiff had previously filed Suit No.231 of 1981 wherein he had claimed that area of the plot was 100’ x 50’. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff is inconsistent with the oral and documentary evidence. There is no material on record as to what was the area of the plot owned by the vendor of the plaintiff. 5. Taking into consideration these circumstances and the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove any encroachment, I do not see any substantial question of law involved. 6. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 7. As the appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A.No.1204 of 2008 does not survive and stands dispose of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)