IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 91 of 2008 Ashiq Ali S/o Rahmat Ali R/o Ward No. 7, Nagar Palika Colony Tanakpur, District Champawat. ...………… Defendant / Appellant Versus Manoj Johari S/o late Gyan Prakash Johari R/o Tanakpur, District Champawat. ...…………. Plaintiff / Respondent Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the defendant / appellant. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for plaintiff / respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate present for the defendant / appellant. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate present for plaintiff / respondent. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge / I F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2001, passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khatima] in Suit No. 35 of 1992, is affirmed. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff / respondent instituted suit No. 35 of 1992 against the defendant / appellant for possession and mesne profits over plot No. 301, measuring 40 feet X 60 feet in Ward No. 7 of limits of Nagar Palika, Tanakpur. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was lessee of the land allotted to him by the Nagar Palika, Tanakpur, and the defendant encroached upon the land on 06.02.1986, when the plaintiff was away from the station. Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he is in possession over the land in suit for more than 12 years, and it is denied that the plaintiff was lessee of the land in suit. 4) The trial court as well as the lower appellate court, after hearing the parties, found that the land in suit was allotted to the plaintiff and defendant has encroached upon the land. The trial court decreed the suit which was affirmed by the first appellate court. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment and decree challenged before this Court, this Court finds that there is concurred finding of fact based on the evidence on record, which requires no interference. Otherwise also, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 6) Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed, summarily. (Stay Application No. 7943 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.: December 04, 2008 H.Negi