KONDABAI LAXMAN MHASKE Vs. MUKTABAI VINAYAKRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in this second appeal are original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1997, filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs on 30th January, 1997. The suit was for possession of alleged encroached area to the extent of 00 Hectare 14 Ares. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1997.On receipt of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filedtheir written statement. Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Parties led their evidence, oraldocumentary. Trial Court, considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit on 3rd February, 2001. It was challenged by the defendants by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2001 in the Court of learned District Judge at Jalna. This appeal, filed by the defendants, after hearing the parties, came to be dismissed by the judgment and order passed on 23rd December, 2004. This judgment and decree, passed by the first Appellate Court, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2001, is challenged by the aggrieved defendants, by filing this second appeal.

(2.) Mr. V. D. Hon, learned counsel for the Appellants, has invited my attention to the grounds in this second appeal, according to him involving substantial questions of law, which are reproduced hereinbelow :

(3.) Mr. Hon, learned counsel, has taken me through the judgment of the trial Court. Issue No. 3 framed by the trial Court was regarding the alleged encroachment to the extent of 00 Hectare 14 Ares by the defendants. Finding recorded by the trial Court is in favour of the plaintiffs. He has also referred to point for determination framed by the first Appellate Court. There were two points for determination framed by the first Appellate Court and point No. 1 was regarding the alleged encroachment by the defendants. The first Appellate Court, while considering the appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (the Code, for short) recorded its answer to point No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs.