1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2010 Phulchand s/o Dashrath Padhare ...Appellant VERSUS Smt. Shrimatabai w/o Gangadhar and others ...Respondents ..... Shri S.J.Salunke, advocate for the appellant Shri M.S.Bhosale, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 6 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 13 th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 The parties are referred hereinafter as per their original status in the suit. 2 The appellant herein is the original defendant no. 1 and present respondent nos. 1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs and respondent nos. 7 and 8 herein are the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 in Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 1993, which was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned 2 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property, which is the piece of land, admeasuring 40 x 25 feet, situated at village Wadwani, Taluka Majalgaon. The plaintiffs came with the case that they are the owners of the said land, as the same is their ancestral property and when they were out of town for earning their livelihood, defendant nos. 1 and 2 made encroachment over the said land to the extent of 20 x 10 feet. 3 According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 has made construction over the encroached portion of the land and defendant no.1 is also trying to enter his name as owner in village panchayat record. The plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of the remaining suit land other than the encroached land, but defendant no.1 is trying to disturb their possession. Hence, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 269 of 1993 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. 4 After considering the evidence on record and rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the said suit came to be decreed and the plaintiffs were declared as the owners of the suit property i.e. House No. 681, admeasuring 40 x 25 feet, situated at village Wadwani as described in the plaint and defendant no.1 was directed to hand over vacant possession of 20 x 10 feet land i.e. constructed area to 3 the plaintiffs, as well as defendant nos. 2 and 3 were restrained perpetually from obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs over the afore said suit property. 5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree, defendant no.1 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004 before the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon. However, same also came to be dismissed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon by judgment and order dated 8.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of dismissal of the appeal, original defendant no.1 i.e. appellant herein has preferred the present Second Appeal assailing the same. 6 Considering the evidence adduced by the parties on record and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the parties, it is apparent that the plaintiffs have proved their ownership in respect of the suit property, and defendant no.1 failed to adduce any reliable and cogent evidence to show that the summons issued by the City Survey Officer is not authentic certification of ownership of deceased plaintiff, as well as he failed to establish that suit land belonged to the Village Panchayat and he occupied the suit land before 30 to 35 years. Moreover, it is also the case of defendant no.1 that he has perfected the title by way of adverse possession, but failed to substantiate the same. 4 7 Hence, in view of the said position, finding given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court does not warrant interference. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law could be formulated, and therefore, present appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/sa377.10