1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.355/06 with S.A.No.493/06. Tukaram Balaji and anr.. ..vs.. Sindhutai Kawale and 2 ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 28th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.N.S.Talmale, Advocate for the appellants. 2. Two suits were filed by plaintiff - Sindhutai for removal of an encroachment in the sense that it was found that the roof of the defendant's house projected over the land of the plaintiff and therefore she sought an injunction for removal of the roof and changing the direction of the roof so that ever water should not fall on her land. The defendant has also filed Civil Suit No.27 of 1994 claiming the possession of the land saying that Sindhutai has encroached upon his land. The courts below have held that Tukaram – the defendant in Civil Suit No.35 of 1994 had failed to prove the encroachment on Sindhutai's 2 land. The court has mainly relied on the Commissioner's report. The Commissioner Report further goes to show that the roof of Tukaram's house projects over the land of Sindhutai and therefore decree has been passed in favour of Sindhutai. If ever water of Tukaram's roof falls on the land of Sindhutai, the trial court was also justified in passing the decree relying upon the report of the Commissioner since no party had raised an objection to the aspect. No fault can be found with appreciation of the evidence by the courts below. There is no substantial question of land involved in the appeal. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE. pzc