1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 219/2003 (Patwari Pusaji Meshram VERSUS Baburao Aatmaram Tadose) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for the appellant. Shri S. Borkar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders, which are challenged by the instant second appeal. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the suit property, on which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had encroached upon. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has encroached upon the suit land prior to ten to eleven years as alleged by the plaintiff. The Courts further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any damages from the defendant as the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership over the disputed property and the defendant had succeeded in proving that he and his predecessor-in-title were in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property. 2 The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and are also based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE