The burden of proof, factual foundation, and proper pleading are crucial in establishing claims related to land encroachment and limitation period for filing suits.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of C. P. Code against the Judgment / decree, dated 28-02- 1982, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandsour (Neemuch) in s. A. No. 48-A of 1979, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 72- A of 1976, decided by civil Judge, Class 11, Neemuch, on 28-06-1979. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law:--1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the lower courts have committed an error in passing the decree for mandatory injunction ? 2) Whether the suit has been rightly held to be within limitation ?

( 2 ) HEARD Shri PK Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Ranuka, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sadhna Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) IN short, the case of plaintiff is that defendant has made some construction over the land belonging to plaintiff thereby has committed some sort of an encroachment. It is also complained that an obstruction in the enjoyment of plaintiff's easementary right is also being created and hence, need to claim injunction as also removal of encroachment on the land. The defence of defendant was that of denial of plaintiff's case and raising a plea of limitation that suit is barred by limitation. Parties led evidence. The trial court partly decreed the suit holding that defendant has made encroachment on plaintiff's land and hence, he must remove the offending construction. It is also directed that defendant should also not create any obstruction in future. However, relief in relation to infringement of easementary rights was declined. The defendant then filed first appeal whereas the plaintiff filed cross objection. By impugned judgment /decree, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant so too the cross objection of plaintiff. It is against this judgment, only the defendant has filed second appeal. The plaintiff has renewed his cross objection.

( 4 ) SO far as cross objection PR.-No. 4192 of 1982 (dated 6. 10. 1982) filed by the plaintiff is concerned, it has no substance. In other words, it does not involve any substantial questions of law as contemplated under section 100 of C. P. Code and hence, it can not be entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out to me any substantial question of law arising out of the finding of two courts which resulted in partial dismissal of plaintiff's suit so far as relief relating to infringement of plaintiff's easementary rights was concerned. When two courts on facts and appreciation of evidence has concluded that no case of infringement of easementary rights is made out requiring a grant of any mandatory injunction, the issue must come to an end so far as second appellate court is concerned. 1, therefore, do not find any merit in the cross objection filed by the plaintiff being P. R. No. 4192 of 1982. It is rejected.

( 5 ) COMING to the facts of the case so far as appeal filed by the defendant is concerned, it also has no merit. So far as substantial question of law No. 1 is concerned, it is general in nature and does not show as to which is that error that has led to grant of injunction or decree for removal of encroachment made by the defendant on plaintiff's land. The question, whether defendant has made encroachment on plaintiff's land, or not ? is essentially a question of fact involving no question of law as such much less substantial question of law. Any finding returned by two courts becomes a concurrent finding of fact and is thus, binding on the second appellate court. This is what has actually happened in this case when two courts below have returned a categorical finding against the defendant that he has made encroachment on plaintiff's land. If the court finds that defendant has made encroachment on plaintiff's land then a direction has to be issued to remove it. I. therefore, do not find any case to take any other view than t