ADMIT. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the appellant is the legal representative of the original plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 28.12.1995, he had purchased land admeasuring 4 Acres from field Survey No.25 situated within the municipal limits of Amravati. The sale-deed was got executed through his registered Power of Attorney holder. On paying consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- the sale-deed was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession. A portion of the land encroached by defendant nos.1 and 2 was also taken in possession. On 23.11.2002, the plaintiff measured his land and it was noticed that the defendant no.1 had committed encroachment to the extent of 35 R from the Southern side while the defendant no.2 who was related to the defendant no.1 had encroached about 3 R land also from the Southern side. The plaintiff made request to the defendant nos.1 and 2 to remove the encroachment but no steps were taken in that regard. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a registered document of Power of Attorney in favour of his daughter and she also made similar request to the defendant nos.1 and 2. After issuing a legal notice, suit was filed praying that the defendant nos.1 and 2 be directed to remove the encroachment to the extent of 38 R land.

3. In the written statement filed by defendant no.1 the case as pleaded by the plaintiff was denied. The defendant no.1 claimed title on the basis of sale-deed dated 17.04.1969 executed by one Vitthalrao Nanwatkar. The defendant no.2 was stated to have acquired title by virtue of sale-deed dated 02.11.1977 executed by one Shantabai Jaiswal. It was further stated that initially M/s Edulji Dotimal Ginning and Pressing Factory Limited filed a suit against defendant no.1 being Regular Civil Suit No.413 of 1979 for removal of encroachment. In that suit, it was alleged that the defendant no.1 had committed encroachment to the extent of 7798 square feet. That suit came to be dismissed and the defendants continued in possession. It was further pleaded that the construction alleged to have been erected by the defendant was in existence even when the earlier suit was filed. It was thus pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed. The defendant no.3Municipal Corporation also filed its written statement stating therein that there was no cause of action against it.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged encroachment by the defendant nos.1 and 2. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the construction erected on a portion of the suit property by the defendant no.1 was illegal. The sale-deeds dated 17.04.1969 and 21.11.1977 by which defendant nos.1 and 2 claimed title were held to be duly proved. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The original plaintiff then filed an appeal and the appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff have filed this second appeal.

5. On 07.06.2016, this Court noticed that it was necessary to appoint a Surveyor to measure the property described in the sale-deeds at Exhibits 47 and 66. Accordingly, the trial Court was directed to appoint a Court Commissioner for measuring the said properties. In pursuance thereof, the trial Court appointed the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (T.I.L.R.) who measured the said properties. A finding was recorded by the trial Court on 28.09.2017 holding that as per the map at Exhibit 131, the defendants were not in possession of the land of the plaintiff that was alleged to be encroached. That finding was returned to this Court. However, as the findings were not certified by the appellate Court, this Court by order dated 22.02.2018 directed the appellate Court to certify those findings. Accordingly, the appellate Court by its order dated 10.04.2018 h