1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2008 Maruti Atmaraqm Padwal (since deceased through his legal heirs): 1.Subhash Maruti Padwal 2.Dattaraya Maruti Padwal Both residents of Damkhadi Taluka Roha, Distrct Raigad. Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs Vs. Yaduram Ganpat padwal ... Respondent (Org.defendant) Mr. Vijay Gharat, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Praveen Singh,Advocate, for the respondent CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 10th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Perused the judgments of the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff was the owner of an open space admeasuring 27’ North-South and 8’ east-west. According to him, his father had sold a part of the plot admeasuring 23’ east-west and 27’ north-south from the eastern side. They 2 had already their own house to the western side. According to him, the defendants had encroached upon the remaining portion of 13’ east-west and 23’ north-south. The defendants had made construction on that portion in 1980. The suit was filed in 1990 for removal of encroachment and possession. A Commissioner was appointed by the Court who did not find any encroachment. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff also preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.211 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed with the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove any encroachment of the land. There is nothing to show that the finding is perverse. No question of law is involved in the present Appeal. 3. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 4. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)