1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 191/2008 (Sewak Antaram Nagalwade VERSUS Gajanan Sadashiv Nagalwade & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Choudhari, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 24, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for possession and removal of encroachment of 15 Sq.Ft. X 35 Sq.Ft. of land belonging to the plaintiff as shown in the plaint map. According to the plaintiff, he was the owner of the suit property and the defendant had wrongfully encroached the plaintiff's land and erected a fencing and constructed a toilet and a bathroom thereon. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The defendants pleaded that they were in possession of the suit property for long and the plaintiff had no concern with the same. The defendants also pleaded that the defendants were using the same for tying their cattle and the suit was instituted by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant. 2 Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. The Courts further recorded a finding on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that the defendant had encroached upon the land of the plaintiff and had constructed a toilet and a bathroom thereon. Since both these findings are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, it is clear that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE