1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL ST.NO. 3914 of 2009 Raghunath @ Dinanath H.Churi Decd. His LRs Shri Purshottam R.Churi .. Appellant versus Maharashtra State Government through Collector .. Respondent ... Mr.Pradeep Gole for the applicants Ms.V.S. Mhaispurkar AGP for the respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :12th October 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard. 2. Office objections are dispensed with and the appeal is heard on merits for admission. 3. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Government of Maharashtra issued a notice to the appellant for removal of encroachment on a strip of land adjoining Gat Nos.81 and 82 admeasuring 14 gunthas. Appellant challenged the notice by filing a suit bearing regular Civil Suit no.23 of 2000, for declaration and injunction. The appellant claimed that he was in continuous and unobstructed possession of the suit property for more than 70 years and has therefore become the owner by adverse possession. 2 Therefore, the notice was bad in law. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that appellant had failed to prove continuous, uninterrupted and open possession over the suit property as alleged. The lower appellate court confirmed the decision. 4. In my view, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the finding that the appellant had not proved 70 years unobstructed possession is perverse in as much as two court below have overlooked the admission in the cross examination of Mr.Vilas R. Padvi, Tahsildar. Counsel invited my attention to a statement in the cross examination of Mr.Padvi, Tahsildar wherein he has stated that “the plaintiff and his family were in possession of Gat no.81 and 82 for a period of last 70 years. “ In my view, the statement does not further the case of the plaintiff for two reasons. Admittedly, Padvi is 29 years of age. Therefore, his statement that the plaintiff and his family were in possession of Gat no.81 and 82 is a hearsay evidence and is not admissible in evidence. Secondly, the issue in the case is not of possession of Gat no.81 and 82 but a strip of 14 goonthas of land adjacent of Gut no.81 and 82. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of Gat no.81 and 82 was not a matter in issue in the suit at all. The question was whether the plaintiff had encroached upon a strip of land adjacent to Gat no.81 and 82 and was in adverse possession thereof for 70 years as alleged by him. Both the Courts below have held against the plaintiff. That finding is a possible finding of fact. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Second Appeal which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)