1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 439/2007 Mahakali Pocham Jumade vs. Iqbal Ahmedkhan Miyakhan and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande,J DATE : 1.11.2007 Heard Mr. M.L.Somalwar, learned counsel for the appellant. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and decree dated 7th April, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45/1991 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 21.3.1991 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Chandrapur in Regular civil Suit no. 152/1989. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the appellant is the original defendant. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession based on the title. The defence of the appellant was that the construction done by him was on the Government land and as such the plaintiffs had no title in respect of the alleged encroached land. The trial court as well as lower appellate court recorded a finding that the respondents had title in respect of the land encroached by 2` the appellant and consequently decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings that the respondents have proved title in respect of the encroached land and consequently decreed the suit filed by the respondents. Mr. Somalwar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the trial court which has been confirmed by the lower appellate court that the respondents have title in respect of the suit property is a finding based on no evidence and as such perverse. The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of title suit filed by the respondents for recovery of possession could not have been decreed by the trial court and the decree could not have been confirmed by the lower appellate court. Having perused the records and having considered the submission made by Mr. Somalwar, I am of the considered opinion that no fault could be found with the decrees passed by both the courts below. The lower appellate Court in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned Judgments has referred several documents viz. Exhs. 30,31,32 and has come to the conclusion that these documents clearly prove the title in favour of the respondents. In my opinion, this finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence on record and as such cannot be termed as 3` perverse warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. which is a limited jurisdiction conferred upon this court. In my opinion no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Civil Application No. 6004/2007: In view of the dismissal of the appeal, this application has become infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. Judge patle