1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 294 of 2011 Ambadas s/o Sakharam Kolhe ...Versus... Smt. Shaobha Harinarayan Gore & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.A. Joshi Advocate for the appellant. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 18.07.2011. Heard. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the courts below have wrongly considered the mutation entries as proof of title, when as a matter of fact there was sale-deed of the year 1916, but that was not produced and in absence of same the courts below could not have conferred title of the suit property on the plaintiff. It is true that the sale-deed of 1916 was not produced on record but the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs were having possessory title and that was duly proved by the corroborative documentary evidence. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant started encroaching in 1994 with the adjoining land's possession and that is why 2 a suit was filed. The contention raised by Mr.Joshi that the appellant was in possession has been negatived by the courts below since they have found that that was by way of encroachment and the plaintiffs possessed a better title than the defendant. That obviously is a finding of fact giving rise to no substantial question of law. There is no merit in this appeal. S.A. No. 294/11 is dismissed. Judge /TA/