(1) SA. 781.2004+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2004 Baswaraj S/o Gundappa Bale .. Appellant VERSUS Sangram S/o Gundappa Godbole and others .. Respondents AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2004 Baswaraj S/o Gundappa Bale .. Appellant VERSUS Sangram S/o Gundappa Godbole and others .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Appellants Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4 Second Appeals stand dismissed against respondent no.3 vide Court's order dated 31.3.2010 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 3RD MAY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard Mr. Chandole and Mr. Manale for respective parties. The concurrent findings against defendant no.4 are questioned in these Second Appeals. 2] The controversy revolves to the boundary and the so called encroachment. The respondents in the Second Appeals also filed suit/proceedings seeking (2) SA. 781.2004+1 injunction against the original defendant no.1 in which there is clamp of decree against original defendant no.4. Original defendant no.4 submits that his land is even beyond the brook/nala which fact the Court negated. 3] The fact remains that the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 16.11.1963 does not provide specific boundaries though acreage is shown as 22 Acres 26 Guntha. The existence of brook/nala is not controverted however, according to the cadestral surveyor, it changes it's stream way and therefore there is addition or subtraction in the respective holdings. It may be correct situation, however, the fact remains that the analysis of evidence demonstrated that the defendant no.4 did not establish his title to the land beyond the brook. Mr. Chandole, during the course of submissions flashed a map drawn by surveyor on 11.12.1962. However, he fairly concedes that this map is not part of the Court record. The consequent aspect is, that the map on which the counsel relies, will not be of any assistance. 4] Both the Second Appeals in the fact situation, do not project any substantial question of law to be formulated. The remissness and mistakes that has occurred in recording of the evidence has naturally to be shared by the parties litigating. (3) SA. 781.2004+1 However, if the appellant herein (defendant no.4) desires to get the mist removed, he is at liberty to get both the lands measured from the competent authorities and to adopt proper course if permissible under the law. It is a matter of record the respondent (original plaintiff) has already digged a well, where he has installed electric motor and fetching good yield of water. This fact also warrants consideration. 5] Both the Second Appeals sans merit, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp