1 S.A.NO.158/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.158 OF 2009. Krupawati w/o Balasaheb Kadam ...Appellant. VERSUS Tejerao S/o Jakoji Jadhav ...Respondent. ... Mr.G.G.Suryawanshi,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date: 29th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dismissing the appellant’s suit. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of portion of her plot. It is her case that the respondent/defendant made encroachment on western side of her plot. It is further her case that the encroachment is a strip of land admeasuring 5’x 40’. It is an admitted 2 S.A.NO.158/2009 fact that the respondent is owner of a plot of land which is situated on the west of the appellant’s plot. On the east of the appellant’s plot there lies a plot of land owned by one Hanmanta. The appellant recorded evidence of one Vinayak who stated that in presence of the respondent, he took measurements of the plots and observed that the respondent had made encroachment as alleged by the appellant. But having gone through the depositions of both the appellant and her witness Vinayak, it is clear that while taking measurements of the plots witness Vinayak do not use a permanent boundary mark of either the plots belonging to the appellant or the respondent or Hanmanta. In absence of the permanent boundary mark on the spot, the measurement and the conclusion based on such measurement are not trustworthy. The learned District Judge-1 has rightly dismissed the appellant’s suit for want of proper evidence. I see no reason for interfering in the findings. Besides, there is no substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. In view of this, Civil Application Nos. 2684/2009 & 3997/2009 do not survive. Both the Civil Applications stand disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp