vsa 1 SA620_2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1347 OF 2011 Chintamani Laxman Bhagat & Ors. ).. Appellants Versus Kishor Dattatray Khot & Ors. ).. Respondents Shri Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Sanjay S. Gawade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2011. P. C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants Nos. 1, 2 & 4. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs. 2. The original plaintiffs claimed that they are the owners of the property bearing C.T.S. No. 219 admeasuring 90.3 sq. meters. situated at Alibag. The case made out in the plaint is that the defendants encroached upon a part of the suit property by constructing a structure. Therefore, a suit for removal of encroachment was filed alongwith other reliefs. The present appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was contended that there is no encroachment made as alleged. The Trial Court passed a decree for removal of encroachment, which has been confirmed in an appeal before the District Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that apart from the fact that the encroachment was not established, the plea of vsa 2 SA620_2011 adverse possession was raised before the Appellate Court and the said plea has not been considered on merits. 4. I have considered the submissions. The Courts below and in particular, the Appellate Court have noted the virtually admitted position that the plaintiffs are the owners of land bearing CTS No. 219 and the defendants are the owners of land bearing CTS No. 201. The Appellate Court has noted that in the reply issued by Laxman (the deceased father of the 1st appellant), there was a categorical admission that the plaintiffs were owners of land bearing CTS No. 219 admeasuring 90.3 sq. mts. 5. Both the Courts below have relied upon the survey map drawn by a cadestral surveyor which showed the enroachment on the property of the plaintiffs as alleged by them. The case of the appellants that there was no notice to them of Survey has been disbelieved by the Appellate court by recording reasons in paragraph 12 of the Judgment. The Appellate court noted that apart from the fact that the Appellants did not apply for second survey, the signature of one of the appellants appears on the Panchnama (Exh. 33), which was drawn at the time of survey. 6. Therefore, there is a clear finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence that the factum of encroachment was proved by the original plaintiffs. As far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the appellants came out with the said plea for the first time in appeal and therefore, the said plea has been rightly rejected. No substantial questions of law arise. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. Civil Application No. 1347 of 2011 does not survive, the same is disposed of. vsa 3 SA620_2011 (A.S. OKA, J)