1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 324 of 2007 (Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Vs. Natthulal Kalyanprasad Sharma & 6 ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 25 th June, 2008 Heard Shri Ghare for the appellant, and Shri Pardhy for the respondents. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff on a plea that the plaintiff was the owner of the market yard and some open land mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are some of the encroachers on approximately 0.02 decimal of land, since the year 1970-71 and in spite of the requests made on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants had failed to vacate the same. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit land and also for mandatory and permanent injunction. The defendants denied 2 the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they were occupying the suit property since the year 1960. According to the defendants, they were entitled for regularization of encroachment on the suit land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the proceedings in that regard were also pending. It was the case of the defendants that in spite of the knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings and the long standing possession of the defendants since the year 1960, the plaintiff did not take any action against the defendants till 1987. According to the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff was time barred. The trial as well as the appellate Courts, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving that it was the owner of the suit land. The Courts considered the order passed by the Collector, Bhandara, on 13/6/1986 whereby 0.18 decimal of the land was ordered to be deducted from the plaintiff's land and the defendants were in possession of 3 land which was included in 0.18 decimal of land. The Courts further held that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation and the suit was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since all the issues were answered against the plaintiff, both the Courts rightly denied the claim of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP