1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 471/2009 (M/s W.C.L. VERSUS Sardar Pyarasingh Munshasingh Mulla) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.C. Mehadia, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1, 2010 . Heard. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the appellant Western Coalfields Limited from encroaching upon the plot belonging to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff/ respondent no.1, he was the owner of plot No.237/A in Khasra NO.59/4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the appellant/defendant had illegally erected poles and fencing in the middle of the plot of the plaintiff. Defendant-Western Coalfields Limited denied the claim of the plaintiff and denied that defendant- Western Coalfields LImited Had encroached upon the plot of the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit plot as the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title had no title to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2/ 2 present appellant pleaded that it was put in possession of the land after the same was allotted to the defendant no.2 by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and, therefore, there was no question of encroaching on the land of the plaintiff. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner and occupier of the suit plot and in the first week of November, 1992 and on 07.01.1993, the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the same. The Courts relied on the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties as also the report of the Commissioner, who had opined that the Western Coalfields Limited had encroached upon the plot of the plaintiff. The Courts also considered some material admissions of the witness of the Western Coalfields Limited in the cross-examination along with the relevant documents to hold that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his ownership and possession over the suit plot. It is also necessary to note that the Nagpur Improvement Trust had, in their written statement, not pleaded that the suit plot was allotted to the Western Coalfields Limited at any point of time, though it was the case of the Nagpur Improvement Trust that the plaintiff was not the owner of the same. The Courts rightly decreed 3 the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the Western Coalfields Limited from encroaching upon the suit plot. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE