1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 246 /2009 (Arun Devidas Nandurkar VERSUS State Bank Employees Anand Co-op. Housing Soc.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Murthy, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 21, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. By this second appeal, the appellant challenges the two concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Court partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and also decreeing the counter claim filed by the defendant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had occupied block no. 25 belonging to the defendant and admeasuring 800 Square Feet consisting of three rooms, varandah, toilet, bathroom, etc. as a tenant since 15.08.1983. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant be restrained from disturbing his possession over the suit block and also be restrained from taking the forcible possession of the open space, which was on the south side of the block. 2 The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff had unauthorizedly encroached upon the two western side rooms of block no.24 and, therefore, by a counter claim, they sought a direction against the plaintiff to remove the encroachment on the two rooms on the western side admeasuring 11 Feet X 13 Feet as also the kitchen room. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was a tenant in three rooms, a closed varandah and open space of 800 Square Feet and had also not succeeded in proving that the defendant society had agreed to sell the suit block in his favour by a resolution dated 02.07.1989. The trial Court, however, held that the plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession over the closed varandah and one adjoining room unless removed by the defendant by following the due process of law. The trial Court had decreed the counter claim of the defendant society and held that the defendant society was entitled to remove the encroachment of the plaintiff from the two rooms on the western side. 3 The judgment passed by the trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff in the first appeal. The first appellate Court, however, confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of both the judgments, it is clear that the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. It cannot be successfully canvased by the appellant that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit as it was the case of the defendant society that the suit was not tenable, specially when the plaintiff had submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial Court by filing the suit. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE