This Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendant against whom a decree was passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of field Survey no. 58/1 5.29 gunthas land of village Bhamod. Defendant is the owner of field Survey No. 58/2 which lies to the south of the plaintiff's field. The plaintiff contends that defendant destroyed the boundary i.e. Dhura in between plaintiff's field and that of the defendant and has committed an encroachment to the extent of 32 gunthas. Plaintiff submits that he got his field measured on 24.02.77 and the Measurer found that the defendant has committed an encroachment to the extent of 32 gunthas.

3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's predecessor in title namely Punjaji cultivated 5.29 gunthas of land. Punjaji sold the same acrage of land to Mahadeo. This Mahadeo was in cultivating possession of 5.29 gunthas of land. It is contended that therefore Mahadeo had a possessory title over the suit property and he could therefore convey title in favour of the plaintiff to that extent.

4. Original defendant filed Written Statement. He admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of Survey No. 58/1. He also admits that his field lies to the south of the plaintiff's field and he is the owner thereof. He denied that he has encroached upon the plaintiff's land to the extent of 32 gunthas. He also denied that the boundary i.e. Dhura between the two fields was destroyed by him any time. The main contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is the owner of 5 acres of land only. He contends that his father Bhaskar had sold 5 acres of land only to Punjaji the predecessor in title of plaintiff's vendor. He submits that plaintiff is therefore owner of 5 acres land only and the defendant has not committed any kind of encroachment.

5. Learned Judge of the trial Court found that the plaintiff was owner of 5.29 gunthas and defendant had committed encroachment to the extent of 32 gunthas. Holding so he decreed the suit. Defendant being aggrieved by that finding preferred an appeal before the District Judge. District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Appeal was admitted by this Court treating grounds [xxiv], [a], [b], [c], [d], [e] as substantial questions of law. They are as follows: xxiv] Total approach of both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of respondent without any clinching, convincing evidence is totally illegal and unwarranted.

a) Whether the findings of facts that the respondent is owner of 5 acres and 30 gunthas are perverse particularly when Punjaji (through whom respondents claims to have purchased the suit land and further claims to have cultivated 5 acres 29 gunthas of land, thereby claiming possession title etc) has in clear terms stated that he purchased, cultivated and subsequently sold only 5 acres of land to Mahadeo?

b) Whether the courts below have improperly rejected the evidence of D. W. 2 Punjaji around whom the case revolves?

c) Whether the findings of fact that the appellants encroached upon 32 gunthas of land, are perverse particularly when the P. W. 2 and 3 have given contradictory statement about the destruction of Dhura between the fields of parties and further when the evidence of P. W is absolutely inadequate and unreliable and also further for the reasons that the respondent has not examined himself and Mahadeo (respondent's vendor)?

d) Whether the courts of proving ownership of 5 acres and 29 gunthas. It was the respondent who was to prove first whether he was owner of 5 acres 29 gunthas land?

e) Whether the findings of the courts below about the ownership of 5 acres and 29 gunthas land is in disregard of evident and/or whether it is assumption of facts