IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1062 OF APPEAL NO.1062 OF APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2005 2005 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anil kumar Patil for the appellant. Ms. Usha Purohit for respondent Nos. 1A to 1D & 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th July, 2007 : 10th July, 2007 : 10th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Both the Courts below, in a suit for injunction filed by the appellant/ plaintiff, held that, apart from the construction of the property, the original defendant’s possession over the suit property is not of encroacher, as averred. The plaintiff failed to prove that the possession of the defendant over the property in question was of encoarcher. All the issues, therefore, answered in negative ( 2 ) and against the plaintiff. 2. In the result, plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant has already been encroached the property in question and or belongs to the plaintiff. 3. The case of adverse possession, against the defendant’s ownership was also rejected. 4. Therefore, there is no case made out by the appellant to interfere, with the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below. 3. Resultantly the second appeal is dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]