1 sa242 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.242 OF 2011 Tulshiram Balwant Kadam (since deceased through L.Rs.) ...Appellants vs. Devram Balwant Kadam ...Respondent Mr.Dilip Bodake for the appellants Mr.Atul Kore i/b Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the plaintiffs. A suit was filed for removal of encroachment. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. 2 The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ownership of the appellants over the suit property was proved and that the respondent admitted that all the ancestral properties have been partitioned between the parties except the suit land bearing Block No.1423. He submitted that in absence of proof of partition, the right of the appellants cannot be defeated. 3 I have considered the submissions. The suit is for removal of encroachment. The findings of the both the Courts below are that the appellants failed to establish any encroachment made by the 2 sa242 respondents. In paragraph 10 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court, it is observed thus : 10...All other agricultural lands owned were partitioned between them. Even if it is accepted that between portion of 20 R. land is acquired for land acquisition purpose in 1983 and the compensation amount was apportioned between them, it is not proved by the plaintiff that there was Phalani of land Gat no.1423. No boundary marks of the 40R portion allotted to the defendant and the equal portion allotted to plaintiff were fixed and boundary stones were affixed. There is absolutely no survey measurement of the land held by the Plaintiff before filing the suit for possession of 10R land vaguely mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. 4 The Appellate Court has held that as the suit was for removal of encroachment, it was the duty of the Appellants to get the lands surveyed through the Survey Officer. 5 In view of the concurrent findings of fact, no case is made out for interference. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6 Civil application no.1035 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE