1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 479/2010 (Shobharam Shamrao Kalambe VERSUS Vinod Chhotelal Bhalekar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.A. Gupte, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 15 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached upon 6.6 feet X 30 feet of land purchased by him from Shri Anand Bharatkar by a registered sale-deed dated 13.11.2001. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendant made an encroachment on the same to the extent of 30 feet X 6.6 feet. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded by the defendant that he had purchased a plot of land, which included the suit property from one Rajaram Lade. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. 2 Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his title to the suit property and further proved that the defendant had encroached upon 30 Feet X 6.6 feet of land belonging to the plaintiff. The Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the same. While holding so, the Courts believed the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and held that the defendant was taking undue advantage of the mutation entry in the revenue record to claim ownership and possession over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE