1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.730 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NO.10469 OF 2009 Abarao @ Kakasaheb S/o Dadarao Pawar and others ... Appellants VERSUS Nandkishor S/o Shrirkishna Mantri and others ... Respondents ... Mr. S.S.Choudhari,Advocate for appellants Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni,Advocate for respondents ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 16th OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. This second appeal is filed by seven original defendants,out of 32 defendants. The respondent- plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession. He states that he is owner of large plot of land on which the appellants as well as other defendants had made an encroachment. He described the encroached area of the land in location sketch map. 2. The appellants/defendants opposed the suit mainly on the ground that the respondent was not owner of the land in their possession. The issue 2 of ownership is concurrently held infavour of the respondent. However, there is one peculiar aspect of this case which is highlighted by the learned advocate for the appellants. In the plaint, though there are 32 defendants and though it is case of the respondent/defendant that all 32 persons have made an encroachment on certain area of his land, he has not mentioned as to how much area is occupied by each of defendants. He made omnibus statement that the area of about three and half acres is in occupation of 32 defendants. On the other hand, the area which he shown in the location sketch map as being encroached by 32 defendants are two strips of land, one is admeasured 10 meter X 20 meter and other is admeasured 12 meter X 30 meter, taken together this area would be 560 Square meter, which makes about 6000 square feet area. By no stretch of imagination this could be equivalent to three and half acres land. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pointed out this anomaly in the description of the suit property. He tried to contend that unless area occupied by each defendant is separately identified suit could not have been decreed. I think, this submission does not give rise to substantial question of law. This objection was not raised at trial stage nor it was raised at first appellate stage. Most of 3 the discussion between the parties centered around the issue of ownership. The anomaly in the description of the suit property might lead to some difficulty when the respondent would try to execute a decree, but that would be a question during execution. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Civil application No.10469 of 2009 stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) MTK./SA.730.09