1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.295 OF 2010 ATMARAM MALHARI MORE ..VS.. GRAMPANCHAYAT CHIKHALGAON & ANOTHER Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 7 th JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri Apurv De, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for removal of encroachment and grant of perpetual injunction directing the Gram Panchayat to remove the construction from the encroached area. It was the case of the plaintiff that a layout was chalked in the year 1980 and the State Government in the revenue proceedings had allotted plot no.38 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that plot no.38 admeasured 1500 sq.ft. and the plaintiff was allotted the said plot along with an area of 450 sq.ft. which was on the northern side of plot no.38. The plaintiff then pleaded that though the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the property, the Gram Panchayat had started making construction over the property by encroaching upon the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore, sought for 2 the demolition of the construction carried out on the said property. The defendant – Gram Panchayat filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was not dispute that the state government had chalked out a layout, but it was denied that plot no.38 was allotted to the plaintiff by the state government. It was further denied that the plot admeasuring 450 sq.ft. was also allotted to the plaintiff by the government. According to the Gram Panchayat the suit property was an open plot which was vesting in the Gram Panchayat and the construction was being carried on the said plot with the funds of the State Government. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title and exclusive possession over the suit property. The courts held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the Gram Panchayat wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff by making construction on the suit property. The courts, therefore, refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Both the courts held that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in producing the document of title, so as to 3 establish his ownership over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts and are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since the plaintiff had failed to produce and prove the document of title, the courts rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and further his exclusive possession over the suit property. Since no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.