1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 142/2008 (Onkar Mahadeorao Kaner VERSUS Gulab Marotrao Sontakke) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri P.A. Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.M. Doifode, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 9, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for removal of encroachment of 2 Ft. X 45 Ft. of plot of land belonging to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the suit property i.e. 2 Ft. X 45 Ft. of plot belonged to the plaintiff but, the defendant had erected a compound thereby encroaching on the aforesaid piece of land. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendant was the owner of the suit plot and there was no encroachment whatsoever on the land belonging to the plaintiff. Both the parties had got measured the plots of land belonging to the plaintiff & the defendant and also the two other plots from 2 Architect. The parties also tendered oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the Courts considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the map drawn by the defendant's Architect was proved, whereas the plaintiff was not able to prove the map drawn by the Architect of the plaintiff. For cogent evidence, both the Courts discarded the map drawn by the plaintiff's Architect. Apart from these documents, the Courts also considered the oral evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had encroached upon the plot of 2 Ft. X 45 Ft. land belonging to the plaintiff. The Courts also held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title on the suit land to the extent of 2 Ft. X 45 Ft., and therefore, was not entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE