1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 279/2010 (Ishram Narayan Gaikwad VERSUS Saraswati Atmaram Gaikwad & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.P. Sadavarte, counsel for the appellant. Shri Masood Shareef, counsel for the R-1 to 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of 34 Gunthas of land. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of 53 ARE of land, which was their ancestral property. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of the husband of the plaintiff no.1, he had given about 30 to 35 Gunthas of land to the defendant for grazing his cattle and for collecting fodder. It was then pleaded that in lieu of that, the defendant provided his bullocks and agricultural implements to the deceased husband of the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant did not handover the possession of the property to the plaintiffs in spite of requests and, hence, the suit was filed. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that the husband of the plaintiff was addicted to liquor and he had mutated his name in cultivation column of 34 Gunthas of land in collusion with the Talathi. It was denied that the possession of the defendant over 34 2 Gunthas of land was illegal. The defendant pleaded that there was an oral partition between him and deceased Atmaram in the presence of panchas and in that partition, Atmaram had given 34 Gunthas of land to the defendant. The defendant pleaded that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were cultivating their land separately and the suit was liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendant had encroached on the suit land since December-1996. The Courts held that the defendant had been unsuccessful in proving that he received the suit property in a partition dated 05.04.1991 between Atmaram and the defendant. The Courts held that the defendant was a stranger and was not a co-owner of the property so as to claim to have become the owner of the property by the alleged partition dated 05.04.1991. The Courts also considered the admission of the defendant that there was already a partition between the forefathers of the defendant before 05.04.1991. The Courts, therefore, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE