1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.151 OF 2010 Satyanarayan Vyankatrao Dhande & others ..vs.. Sakharam Jairam Dhande & others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.A. Gupta, advocate for appellant CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 9, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for removal of encroachment to the extent of 3 Rs. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and the defendants were adjoining field owners and the defendants had encroached upon 3 Rs of the field property belonging to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that on 24.5.1988, there was a measurement by the competent authority and the plaintiff realized that the defendant had encroached upon the field of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that they had made any encroachment. It was also pleaded by the defendants that they became the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The trial and the appellate court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving 2 that the defendants had encroached upon 3 Rs of land belonging to the plaintiffs. Both the courts discarded the measurement map at exhibit 56 which showed that the plaintiffs had encroached upon the land of of the defendants and had accepted the two measurement reports at maps/exhibit 31 and 41 to hold that the defendants had in fact encroached upon the plaintiffs’ field property. The courts recorded cogent reasons for discarding the measurement map at exhibit 56 and accepting the two measurement reports which showed the encroachment. Apart from this documentary evidence, both the courts considered oral evidence on record and the admissions of the defendant in his cross examination to decree the suit of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court also did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by defendants for fresh measurement of the properties as there were three measurement reports already on record and there was enough evidence to decide the lis between the parties. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE SMP