1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. S.A.NO.235 OF 2009 Namdeo Abhiman Gondale and others. . ...vs.. The Gram Panchayat Gadegaon, Distt.Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 21st JULY, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.V.Sohoni, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the two concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 3. The appellants had instituted a suit for possession and injunction in respect of the suit property alleging that the defendant – Gram Panchayat has made an encroachment thereon. It 2 is the contention of the appellants that the appellants had purchased the said property by registered sale-deed from one Damodar Tagade and suit property forms a part of that sale-deed. Further, it was the contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that the Gram-panchayat had obtained a Danpatra from him by exercise of coercion and therefore said Danpatra is void. It was further alleged that the said document is insufficiently stamped and not registered and therefore, not admissible in evidence and on that basis the defendant cannot retain the possession. 4. The defendant had contested the suit on the ground that in fact the plaintiffs have made an encroachment. The vendor of the plaintiffs has sold more land than what he owned and plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit property. It is also contended that prior to the purchase of the property by plaintiffs there is already in existence hand-pump on a disputed property. 5. The courts below found as a fact that 3 hand-pump is in existence on the suit property even prior to the execution of the sale-deed of the property in favour of the plaintiffs and that is the best circumstance to hold that the said property does not belong to the plaintiffs. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the burden to prove that the property belongs to Gram-panchayat is on Gram-panchayat and that has not been discharged and the courts below have fallen in error. 7. The courts below have considered the evidence. They have found that the hand-pump is in existence even prior to the execution of the sale- deed. That itself suggests that the defendant has been in possession of the property and property did not belong to the vendor of the plaintiffs. Such conclusions and inferences cannot be said to be perverse. 8. The learned judge of the appellate court has rightly kept aside the Danpatra particularly 4 when he found that there is in existence a hand- pump on the site even prior to the execution of the sale deed and the defendant has been using the same since its installation. It must be borne in mind that had the property belonged to the vendor of the plaintiffs, the vendor of the plaintiffs would have objected to such hand-pump being installed there. Fact that he did not object clearly suggests that he was not the owner of the property. The evidence, it seems to me is rightly appreciated. There is no perversity. No substantial question of law is involved in the matter. What is being urged is the question of facts. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute