1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1298 OF 2005 Mrs. Vijaya Vishnu Paranjpe & ors........Appellants versus Smt. Mangala Dnyaneshwar Phulsundar & anr..... Respondents. Mr. V.S. Talkute for the Appellants Mr. P.S. Dani for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heared Mr. Talkute learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dani for the respondents. Appellant is the original plaintiff who filed suit for removal of encroachment. The trial court decreed the suit. The respondent being aggreived, preferred an appeal before lower appellate court, which came to be allowed by the judgment and order which is impugned in the present Second Appeal. 2. The lower appellate court recorded finding of fact that the appellant/original plaintiff failed to prove that the respondent/defendant encroached upon plaintiff's property. 2 Consequently it was held that the appellant is not entitled for decree for removal of encroachment and/or possession of the encroached portion. The finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court is not liable to be interfered with in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved. Hence appeal is devoid of any merit and is therefore dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)