JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

1. These are two separate appeals by the original defendant no. 2 (hereinafter “CIDCO”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the dismissal of its Regular Civil Appeal No. 516 of 2012 and allowing Regular Civil Appeal no. 211 of 2013 of the respondents no. 1 and 2 - plaintiffs by the common judgment and order dated 09-10-2018.

2. Respondents no. 1 and 2 claiming to be the exclusive owners of land survey no. 34/1, situated at Jaswantpura, Aurangabad averred about the appellant having encroached over 28 Are portion of their property and claimed declaration of ownership and possession. The trial court decreed the suit partly and directed the appellant to deliver possession of 13 Are portion.

3. Feeling aggrieved, both the sides preferred separate appeals and the appellate court has decided the appeals by common judgment and order under challenge. It dismissed the appeal of the appellant but allowed the appeal of the respondents no. 1 and 2 and modified the decree directing delivery of possession of 28 Are portion. Hence, these two separate appeals.

4. The learned Advocate Mr. Bajaj for the appellant would submit that both the courts below have grossly erred in