1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2005 Mohd. Hussain Abdul Latif & ors........Appellants/Applicants versus Mohd. Ilyas Mhd. Ibrahim Monin & ors........ Respondents. Mr. P.S. Dani adv. for the appellants/ Applicants Mr. R.S. Datar adv. for the respondent no.1. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This second appeal questions the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff directing the removal of the encroachmnt by the defendant which is confirmed by the first appellate court by dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant/defendant. Perusal of para 12 of the judgment of the first appellate court reveals that the suit property was initially owned by one Zainabi and she had constructed two plinths admeasuring 35 x 90 ft. each over the suit property. The plaintiff has purchased the said property from Zainabi. According to the plaintiff, the encroachment is made by the defendant over the said plinth by erecting huts. The defendant no.1 has clearly admitted to have erected the huts over the suit property but 2 claimed that they were erected with the permission and consent of Zainabi. The defendant further claimed that he is a tenant in the premises of Zainabi. In an earlier suit filed by the present defendant against Zainabi bearing no. 1225/86 an issue in regard to the tenancy was raised by the defendant and was answered against the present defendant holding him to be a tress-passer. The said suit was filed by the defendant claiming a relief of declaration and injunction against Zainabi and the Municipal Council. As the said case of the defendant was rejected, there is absolutely no substance in the contention raised by the present defendant that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Having regard to the decision in the earlier suit and the admission of the defendant referred to in para 12 of the appellate judgment, no case whatsoever is made out for interference with the impuned judgment. No question of law emerges much less substantial for entertaining the second appeal. In the result second appeal is summarily dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)