1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO: 263/2008 ( Kisanrao Lahanuji Boharupi and another vs. Sudhakar Sheshrao Thakre) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. Sudhir Malode Adv. for appellants Mr. S K Dadhe Adv. for Respondent CORAM: Smt. VASANTI A. NAIK,J. DATED: 16th July, 2008. *** Heard Mr. Malode, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Appellants are the original plaintiffs. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of 540 sq.ft. of land shown by letters “Bh, Kh, G, F” in the plaint map. It was further prayed by the plaintiffs that it be declared that the defendant had no right to disturb the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property. A permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs they had purchased the house property by a registered sale deed on 20.6.1996 and the suit property was on the western side of the house property purchased by them. The defendant had purchased a house property situated to the western side of the plaintiffs house and beyond the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 25.5.1992. It was pleaded that the suit way was 2 existing between the house property of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It was lastly pleaded that in the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendant encroached upon the suit property and constructed a compound on the same. 3. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and admitted that he purchased his house property in the year 1992. It was pleaded by the defendant that he carried on the repairs in his court yard after seeking permission from the Gram Panchayat. It was pleaded by the defendant that both the parties and other villagers were using some other way as mentioned in the written statement since long and continuously. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right over the suit way and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the Courts below on appreciation of material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the owners of the suit property. The Courts further observed that the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in proving that the defendant encroached upon the suit property shown by the letters in the plaint map. The Courts below also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek the relief of possession and the other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. 5. I have perused both the judgments in detail. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The findings are pure findings 3 of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare