1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 303/2009 1. VINOD S/O MEGHRAJ CHOUORE R/O DANDEGAON, DIST GONDIA .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. HANSRAJ S/O GYANIRAM BANSOD AND 3 OTHERS R/O DANDEGAON, DIST GONDIA 2. PUSHPARAJ S/O GYANIRAM BANSOD R/O DANDEGAON, DIST GONDIA 3. GYANIRAM S/O RAMA BANSOD, R/O DANDEGAON, DIST GONDIA 4. GEETABAI W/O HANSRAJ BANSOD R/O DANDEGAON, DIST GONDIA .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.K. Thakkar, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendants to dismantle and demolish the illegal construction from the suit site and also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Both the Courts concurrently held that the 2 plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit site and also failed to prove that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 had dispossessed him by removing the hut and fencing in the first week of January, 2004. The Courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as claimed by the plaintiff as he had failed to prove his possession over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The Courts believed the evidence of the defendants’ witnesses and specially D.W.2 Krishnakumar who was the Sarpanch of the village. The Courts concurrently held that the appellant had failed to prove that the disputed land was possessed by him since the year 1994-95 and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP