1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 404 of 1998 Chamroji Dagoji Bhongade Vs. Sumitra Sewakram Jangade & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. L Kotwal Adv. for appellant. Shri A. M. Quazi Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22 nd April, 2008. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff. He had instituted a suit for removal of encroachment alleging that defendant who is adjoining plot owner has committed an 2 encroachment to the extent of 1 X 3 sq. mts. Western side and 1.60 sq. mts. Northern side. It is alleged by the plaintiff that plot was measured by the Surveyor and he had found that there was an encroachment made by the defendant. Learned Judge of the trial Court had decreed the suit. Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove an encroachment inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to show that he was the owner of 272 Sq. ft. area. He found that plaintiff's sale deed does show that he had purchased 25 X 9 sq. ft.. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that trial Court has assumed that plaintiff was the owner of 272 sq. ft. of land and that what is mentioned in the sale deed was not correct. Learned Judge of the first appellate Court correctly found that this observation of the trial Court is not correct 3 and plaintiff could not claim ownership over the land more than what is mentioned in his own sale deed. His own sale deed shows that he was the owner of 25 X 9 ft. i.e. 275 sq. ft. of land and he wants to show that defendant made an encroachment on the land which according to plaintiff was 272 sq. ft. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court seems to have rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no encroachment. Further it may be mentioned that pleading of the plaintiff was deficient in the sense that he does not come out with a case as to what is the area of his plot. He does not mention that he has purchased 225 sq. ft. or 272 sq. ft. of land under the sale deed. Since there is no such pleading the learned Judge of the first 4 appellate Court has rightly found that there was no encroachment. I do not see any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk