1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 88 OF 2011 Waman Adamsing Malani ...Versus... Raibhan Adamsingh Manalain & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Deshpande Advocate for the appellant. …. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29.03.2011. The courts below have found that the appellant/plaintiff miserably failed to prove his case by leading appropriate evidence. The courts below also found that the map that was produced along with the plaint was not even accurate and the same was also not proved. The measurements were not proved. The conduct of the plaintiff in not mentioning about possession of defendant no.1 has also been taken care of by the appellate court. I quote para 11 from the judgment of the appellate court to show how the plaintiff has conducted his case and thus miserably failed to prove his own case. Para 11 reads thus : “ While going through the evidence on record, it is seen that map 2 produced and relied by the plaintiff vide Ex.85, the portion alleged in possession of defendant no.1 admeasuring 30 x 35 sq. ft. had not been specifically shown. Similarly, even plaintiff applied for permission of his land for converting it in non-agricultural he has not quoted the plot 30 x 35 sq.ft. mentioning the defendant no.1 occupied thereof. The plaintiff in the map has not mentioned the area under possession of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff has not got measured the portion of his land as well as land in possession of the defendant no.1. Therefore, bare words on record absolutely is nothing but a drought of evidence. Apart it, plaintiff in his cross examination affirm he has converted his field into non agricultural purpose and he has no mention about the possession of the defendant no.1 and therefore it is worthless to say he put the defendant no.1 in possession of said plot as a licensee.” The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the defendant has admitted existence of plot No.35 and 3 possession thereof. The plaintiff has to stand on his own leg. Hence, there is a finding recorded that the plaintiff did not prove his case. There is no point in relying on the admission of the defendant. In the result, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. S.A. No. 88 of 2011 is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge /TA/