1 S.A. No. 341 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2006 Rajkumar S/o Bapurao Sirsat Appellant V E R S U S Pandurang S/o Ramsakha More Respondent Mr. R.K. Jadhavar, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had initially filed a suit for injunction. Thereafter by way of amendment, he claimed that during pendency of the suit he came to be dispossessed from the land admeasuring 1 R and sought possession of the said portion of the land. The trial Court as well as lower appellate Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has assailed the same in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri R.K. Jadhavar learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land was measured by the cadastral surveyor, and he has drawn a measurement map. He was also examined, and he had prepared map, wherein it is clear that the defendant has encroached 2 S.A. No. 341 of 2006 1 R land. The evidence of cadastral surveyor is a piece of evidence for determination of the encroachment. The learned Counsel further submits that the Courts below did not properly appreciated the said evidence. 3. It has come on record that in between the land of plaintiff and defendant there is cart road. The measurement has not been relied upon by both the Courts, in view of the anomalies in the said measurement. The Courts have also observed that only the plaintiff’s land was measured, and the encroachment could not have been determined in absence of the measurement of the defendant’s land. It is also found that the well was not in Gut No. 435. 4. The Courts below have arrived at conclusion based on appreciation of evidence. 5. In the light of the same, Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*341.06/090311 3 S.A. No. 341 of 2006