IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2008 Yeshodabai Uddharao Kule vs. Rambhau Tukaram Dhote Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2008. Heard Shri Bhendarkar, Advocate for the appellant – original plaintiff and Shri Morande, Advocate for the respondent – caveator – original defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the Courts below have given undue importance to absence of description of suit property or its boundaries, as according to him, the said aspect was totally irrelevant. He urges that the ownership of structure occupied by present respondent was itself an essential factor and on it depended question whether to evict the present respondent or not ? According to him, even title to plot on land was not that relevant. Shri Morande, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that it was specific case of defendant that the property occupied by him was ancestral and came to him from forefathers and he was not inducted therein by the appellant/ plaintiff. He states that the suit was not for eviction of licensee but for removal of encroachment. I have perused the judgments with the assistance of both learned counsel. The view reached by Courts below is concurrent. The suit was for removal of encroachment and not for removal of licensee. The plot of land is found not belonging to present appellant and also to present respondent but it is recorded that it is the property of State Government. In the circumstances, in the absence of specific description of suit property, the extent of encroachment or encroachment itself could not have been determined. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises in the matter. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.