PRASHANT Vs. USHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was admitted on 7.8.2007 on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.5.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pandharkawada in Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 2002 whereby the learned first Appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal. In the result, the suit which was decreed by the trial Court came to be dismissed. The first Appeal arose from the Judgment and Order dt.11.7.2002 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1995 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kelapur. The trial Court was pleased to decree the suit for removal of encroachment and possession of the encroached portion after evidence was led by the parties.

(3.) IN State of Maharashtra, at the end of the rule, it is added that ''In cases of encroachment an accurate plan shall also be filed along with the plaint. The law requires sufficient description of the immovable suit property to identify it's boundaries or number. The plaint must not be vague. In cases wherein encroachment is alleged, an accurate plan must be annexed with the plaint.