1 S.A.NO.576/2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.576 OF 2008. Noorjahanbegum w/o Khurshidkhan Pathan Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Mahalsi, Tq.Sengaon, Dist.Hingoli. ...Appellant. (Ori.deft.No.2) Versus 1. Arjun s/o Vithal Barde, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri. R/o: Mahalsi, Tq.Sengaon, Dist.Hingoli. 2. Vishwambhar S/o Vithal Barde, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agri. R/o: Mahalsi, Tq.Sengaon, Dist.Hingoli. 3. Azim Khan S/o Noor Khan Pathan, Age: 71 years, Occ: Agri. R/o: Mahalsi, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. ...Respondent. (Respondents No.1 & 2 Ori. plaintiffs. ) ... Mr.H.I.Pathan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... 2 S.A.NO.576/2008. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 21st July, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree date 15/01/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli, in R.C.A.No. 19/2005. 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent No.3 is the original defendant No.1 in a suit bearing RCS No.159/1997 which was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of 44 R land in Gut No.192. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleged that the appellant who occupied the land situated on west side of the respondent's land had encroached on their land. In order to prove the encroachment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 got the measurement of their land done. During the measurement, the boundaries of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2's land were noticed by permanent marks in land. With the help of these permanent marks, the TILR first fixed the boundaries of the respondent Nos.1 and 2's land and then found that the appellants here, had made encroachment on their lands. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 proved his map, prepared by 3 S.A.NO.576/2008. the TILR, by producing the original before the Court. They also examined a witness who was present at the time of taking measurement and prepared the map. The crucial aspect of this matter is the permanent marking of the boundaries of the respondent No.1 and 2's land. Despite opportunity of cross-examination, the appellant did not challenge the existence and showing of existence of the permanent marks on the spot and the same being shown in the map by the TILR. In absence of such challenge, the map showed the encroachment of the appellant on the respondent Nos.1 and 2's land. This factual aspect was appreciated by the Courts below. There is thus, no possibility of raising of any substantial question of Law. The appeal should, therefore fail. The appeal stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.