1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.691/2007 Puranchand Mohanlal Lunawat. ..Appellant -VERSUS- Shakila Mohammad Shafi (since deceased) & others. ..Respondents ......... Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sanjay Shinde, Advocate i/b M.M.Sathye, Advocate for the respondents. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 02nd MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellant instituted a suit for removal of encroachment by the respondents and also claimed negative declaration of absence of any easementary rights in favour of the respondents. The Trial Court misconstrued the case of the plaintiff and framed a issue as to whether the plaintiff proves his title and possession over the suit property and answered the same in affirmative. It is undisputed that there is no whisper in the plaint about the suit property being owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court has misdirected itself in going into the issues not 2 arising for determination and in decreeing the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has recorded categorical finding that there is no dispute in regard to the title of the property raised by the plaintiff and that the defendant has not encroached upon any land of the plaintiff, hence, the question of removal of encroachment does not arise. The plaintiff has been found to be lacking any easementary rights over a strip of land admeasuring about 5-6 feets forming part of the Survey No.373. A further finding has been recorded about no construction being raised over the suit land. The judgment of the first Appellate Court is based on the evidence on record which does not call for any interference in the Second Appeal. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration in this appeal. There being no merit in the appeal, the same is summarily dismissed. JUDGE