1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2009 Gurudas Jankiram Naitam Vs. Keshaorao Balaji Nagare thr. Marotrao Keshaorao Nagar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. S. Bhendrkar Adv. for appellants. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22 nd JULY, 2009. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Adhoc District Judge I Gadchiroli whereby he confirmed the decree for possession passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Gadchiroli. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for possession of the property. It is his case that the said property was acquired by him by way of lease from the Government and in the year 1996-97 2 defendants encroached upon the said land. It is also his case that the defendants faailed to vacate the land inspite of the repeated requests on the part of the plaintiff, hence plaintiff instituted a suit. 3. Defendants have filed Written Statement and had infact admitted that the Government had given the said land to the plaintiff on lease. Their contention however was that they have been in possession of the suit land right from the year 1985-86 and the plaintiff never cultivated the suit land. 4. Learned Judge of the trial Court framed an issue and found that defendants had made encroachment in the year 1996-97 and defendants had failed to prove their possession over the said property from 1985-86 as alleged. He therefore decreed the suit. 5. First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Shri Bhendharkar learned counsel for the appellants submits before me that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. He submits that defendants have been in possession since 1985-86 and they have thus perfected the title by adverse possession. 7. It appears from the judgments of the Courts below that 3 the plea of adverse possession was infact only raised before the trial Court and it was rejected. Even otherwise first appellate Court found that the defendants have placed on record 7/12 extracts for the year 1996-97 only and onwards showing their possession and defendants were unable to produce any documents showing their possession prior to that period. If the defendants were in possession of the suit property according to them even prior to 1996-97 there was no difficulty for the defendants to produce some documents showing their possession. The fact that the defendants have not produced any documents showing their possession prior to 1996-97 clearly goes to show that defendants were never in possession prior to that. Evidence has been rightly appreciated by the Courts below. Ownership of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendants and in view of this Courts below therefore did not err in decreeing the suit. There is no substantial question involved in the appeal. What is urged is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in Second Appeal. Second Appeal is thus dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4 5 6 7