IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.439 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.439 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.439 OF 2007 Ganpat Khanderao Pharande ...Appellant vs. Tatyaba Baburao Pharande & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Vijay Killedar for the Appellant Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 11,2008. : JANUARY 11,2008. : JANUARY 11,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the plaintiffs. The Appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiffs. The Appellants filed a suit for removal of encroachment. The suit filed by the Appellants has been dismissed by the trial court and the decree of the trial court has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2. After having heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and after perusing the impugned Judgment, I find that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below that the Appellant has failed to prove any encroachment carried out by the Respondents. The courts below and especially the Appellate Court has considered the evidence of the Court Commissioner and has held that the said evidence has completely destroyed the case of the Appellant-plaintiff. A finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of the documents on record that the alleged construction carried out by the Respondents is after obtaining the permission from the local authority. 3. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE