1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 44/1998 ( Jaykisan Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Mohali through its President VERSUS Channu @ Laxman Ukasu Raikwad ) 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Joharapurkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vyavahare, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 26 th July, 2007. Heard Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vyavahare, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff Society for possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the defendant had illegally encroached upon the same. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant had made encroachment on the suit property. The trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to handover the possession of the suit 2 property to the plaintiff. In an appeal carried by the defendant to the first appellate Court, the appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The appellate Court, apart from other evidence, mainly relied on the fact that the plaintiff had not produced any document of title to show that he was the owner of the suit property and the defendant was not entitled to encroach upon the same. In the absence of document of title to prove the encroachment by the defendant, the first appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are extremely just and proper. They are based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. Specially in a case of encroachment, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to strongly prove the extent of land owned by him and the encroachment made by the defendant. Since the plaintiff failed to produce the documents of title, the 3 appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Since no substantial question of law arise in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE