ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 2.Both the above appeals are disposed of by common judgment by consent of both the counsels as both the appeals have been preferred against one common judgment passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur. 3.The present appeals challenge the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.265/1998 whereby the appeals came to be dismissed. 4.The respondents filed a suit claiming that they are the owners of the property admeasuring 11613 Sq. Mtrs. Survey No.65/2, Patwari Halka No.44, (New Ward No.15) situated at Mouza Jaitala, Nagpur in view of the sale deed dated 14/11/1973 and corrected deed dated 18/9/1974. A residential layout was sanctioned by the Corporation for the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the appellants have encroached into their said property and in the meeting held on 15/4/1989, the appellants were shown as encroachers. As the appellants failed to remove the encroachment as per the demands, the suit came to be filed for restoration of the possession of the encroached area. The appellants resisted the suit and claimed that their houses are located in the property Surveyed under No.87/1, 2, 3 ward No.75, P.H. 44 and that they have not encroached into the property of the respondents. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed by judgment and decree dated 4/3/1998 and the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by judgment dated 2/5/2009. 5.The learned counsel for the appellants has urged three contentions which according to him are substantial question of law which arises in the present second appeals. First is that the maps at Exh.88, 89 and 94 cannot be considered as they have not been duly exhibited as the author of the same was not examined. The next contention is that the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the suit have failed to establish that the appellants had encroached into the property of the respondents. The third contention is that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable as the suit is barred by the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. The third contention is that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable as the suit is barred by the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. 6.Dealing with the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is an admitted fact that the map at Exh.88 is a city Survey map which has been issued by the competent authority. The map at Exh.89 is also a city survey map but however, depicting the encroachment which has been drawn in view of the joint inspection by the surveyor of the concerned authority. Exhibit 94 is the sanction plan. There is no dispute that property occupied by the appellants is Survey No.87/123 which otherwise belong to the State Government. The property belonging to the respondent is Survey No.65/2 and the same admeasures 11613 Sq.Mtrs. There is no dispute that the said maps have been duly exhibited before the learned trial Judge in the course of evidence and no objection to such exhibition was raised at any time by the appellants. So also no arguments to that effect were advanced before the learned District Judge. In 2009 (10) S.C.C. 239 (P.C. Thomas Vs. P.M. Ismail and others) the Apex Court has held that once no objection on pleas of "inadmissibility" or "mode of proof" was raised at the time of the exhibiting or any time later during trial, when most of the witnesses produced by the parties were examined and the documents were duly exhibited, it is too late in the day now to object to their exhibition on the ground of mode of proof. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2004 (7) S.C.C. 107 (Dayamathi Bai (Smt) Vs. K.M. Shaffi has held that the mode of proof being irregular and insufficient falls within the procedural law and can be waived. It is held that such objection must be taken before the document is exhibited. In view of the said judgment of the Apex Court, the contention of the learned counsel that the said maps cannot be read in evidence though they have been duly exhibited by the Courts below cannot be accepted. As such the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected. In view of the said judgment of the Apex Court, the contention of the learned counsel that the said maps cannot be read in evidence though they have been duly exhibited by the Courts below cannot be accepted. As such the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected. 7.Dealing with the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that while appreciating the evidence on record, the learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that on perusal of the two maps namely Exhs.88 and 89 it clearly show the exact location of the houses of the appellants which according to respondents are encroachments over the property. The learned District Judge has further held that said map at Exh.89 was prepared in the presence of some of the appellants. The appellants never raised any dispute to the correctness of the said two maps. The map prepared by the City Surveyor at Exh.89 was prepared in the presence of some of the appellants and no objection to that effect was taken by them. The encroachment was shown to be 8376.63 Sq.Ft. Apart from this the Courts below have also found that the correctness of the said maps were not disputed during the cross examination of the witnesses of the respondents. There is no dispute that the said two maps are depicting the properties of the respondents as well as the properties occupied by the appellants. The property of the respondent is survey No.65/2 and the property occupied by the appellants is 87/1-2-3. The property occupied by the appellants is adjoining the property of the respondents. The Survey demarcating line between said two properties have not been disputed by the appellants. There is no boundary dispute between the property of the respondents and the property occupied by the appellants. On the backdrop of these admitted facts, it cannot be said that the encroachment as claimed by the respondents has not been established. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have no claim to any portion of the property Survey No.87/1-2-3. He further submits that the respondents are not interested in removing any encroachment if at all done by the appellants in the Survey No.87/1-2-3. The respondents have restricted themselves to the property belonging to them under Survey No.65/2 at Nagpur. He further submits that the respondents are not interested in removing any encroachment if at all done by the appellants in the Survey No.87/1-2-3. The respondents have restricted themselves to the property belonging to them under Survey No.65/2 at Nagpur. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that their structures are in the property Survey No.87/1, 2, 3 and that the appellants have not encroached in the property of the respondents Survey No.65/2. But however no evidence has been adduced by the appellants that the structures are in the property Survey No.87/1, 2, 3 or in the slum area. In view of the above and considering the encroachment done by the appellants is duly established on the basis of material on record, both the Courts below have given a concurrent findings that there was an encroachment which is done by the appellants in the property of the respondents Survey No.65/2. The learned counsel for the appellants is not justified in submitting that the respondents have failed to establish the encroachment in the property Survey No.65/2. The appellants have not shown any perversity in the findings of the two Courts below that there was encroachment done by the appellants in the property of the respondents Survey No.65/2. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no material to establish the encroachment does not arise at all. No substantial question of law to that effect arise in the present appeal. 8.With regard to the third contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is admitted that the property Survey No.81/1-2-3 has been notified under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act. The respondents are not claiming any portion in the property Survey No.87/1-2-3 and as such the property Survey No.87/1-2-3 is not the subject matter of the suit. Consequently, the question of suit being barred under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act does not arise at all. Consequently, the third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected. No other contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently, the question of suit being barred under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act does not arise at all. Consequently, the third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected. No other contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9.In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I find that both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence on record that there is an encroachment done by the appellants in the property of the respondents. The respondents have duly established their title to the property Survey under No.65/2 and as such the respondents are entitled to the possession of the portion of the property encroached by the appellants in the property Survey under No.65/2. The learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any infirmity in the findings of the Courts below. 10.There is no substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal. As such the above appeals are summarily dismissed.