1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2010 Maroti Vishwanath Gurpude Vs. Baliram Motiram Rodge Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri V. N. Meshram Adv for appellant. Shri Patil Adv for respondent. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 1 st MARCH, 2011. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2003 by which the decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 1997 came to be set aside. Appellant herein is original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 1997 for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from causing any disturbance to the plaintiff’s possession over the suit plot. Suit plot is plot no. 26 on which the plaintiff has encroached upon. It is the case of the plaintiff that his possession of 2 the said plot has been regularised by the Resolution passed by the Grampanchayat. On the other hand it was the case of the defendant that the said plot no. 26 was allotted to him by the authorities of the revenue department pursuant to the Patta dated 25.03.1998. Defendant also relied upon the notice issued to him by the Tahsildar calling upon him to remain present for distribution of the land which notice is Ex. 46. Defendant also relied upon the list of distribution of the plots being Schedule A and B which document was marked as Ex. 47. The defendant also relied upon the Patta dated 25.03.1998. Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that plaintiff’s possession has been sought to be protected by the Grampanchayat. Decree has been upset by the First Appellate Court on the ground that plaintiff has no semblance of authority to occupy the said plot as the said plot was allotted to the defendant by the documents Ex. 46 and 47 and Patta dated 25.03.1998. The First Appellate Court was of the view that defendant had proper title to the plot in the teeth of said documents. The First Appellate Court therefore found it fit to reverse the decree passed by the trial Court. In my view, considering the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court on a consideration of the said documents no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6