1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 316/2006 (Ramkrishna Dnyandeo Thakare VERSUS Maroti Raghuji Thakare & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri V.G. Palshikar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of the property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had illegally encroached on certain land belonging to the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit property was the ancestral property of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the bathroom of the defendant no.1 admeasuring 10 Feet X 10 Feet was situated on the land of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the defendant no.2 had dug a pit of manure in the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a decree for possession of encroached portion of land. Both the defendants contested the suit filed by the plaintiff and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the defendant no.1 2 had constructed a bathroom on the land owned by him and the same was his ancestral property. The defendants pleaded that they were using the said property for nearly 50 to 60 years and pleaded their ownership over the same also by adverse possession. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the defendants had made encroachment on the suit land. The first appellate Court, however, re- appreciated the evidence on record and reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court to hold that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title on disputed portion of the land. The judgment of the first appellate Court is challenged in the instant appeal. I have perused both the judgments in detail. The trial Court has heavily relied on the map prepared by the map drawer and produced by the plaintiff. However, according to the first appellate Court, before drawing the said map, the map drawer had not seen the documents of title of the plaintiff. The Court observed that he had drawn the map only on the basis of the assessment list which did not show the dimensions of the property owned by the plaintiff. 3 Though the plaintiff claimed that the suit property was his ancestral property, the first appellate Court considered the fact that the plaintiff was not able to produce any document to show that the house was recorded in the name of his father at any point of time. The Court considered the fact that the house was recorded only in the name of plaintiff and the plaintiff had failed to prove that the property was ancestral property and the same admeasured 39 Feet X 53 Feet. The first appellate Court then recorded a categorical finding of fact that the defendant nos.1 and 2 proved that they were in possession of the suit property for nearly 50 to 60 years. Thus, after reappreciating the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the first appellate Court as they are recorded after considering the entire relevant evidence on record. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE