1 sa 464.99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 1999 Eknath Shankar Tekale .. Appellant Versus Sarjerao Vithal Tekale .. Respondent Shri L. B. Pallod, Advocate for the Appellant. The Respondent served. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . This is plaintiff’s second appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by removal of encroachment on 23R land over his land gat No. 34. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present second appeal. 2. Shri Pallod, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court after evaluating the evidence of cadestrial 2 sa 464.99 surveyor had rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant had encroached over an area of 23R land of the plaintiff. The said fact has also been proved by the evidence of cadestrial surveyor. The lower Appellate Court without considering the reasons given by the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment. According to the learned counsel, even notices were issued to the defendants which is proved. The whole land was measured. When there are fixed boundaries, there is no necessity for measurement of other lands and by measurement of land of plaintiff the encroachment can be proved. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment. The Courts below have observed that there is bandh between the lands and the said bandh is in tact. No damage has been caused to the said bandh. Even the cadestrial surveyor had not measured the adjoining lands, when a issue of encroachment is before the Court, unless all the adjoining lands of the plaintiff are measured, encroachment as alleged cannot be ascertained. It would not be safe to rely on the measurement of only the gut of the plaintiff. The dispute aroused because of the consolidation proceedings when survey numbers merged into gat numbers. 3 sa 464.99 4. Be that as it may, when it is proved that the land of the defendant was not at all measured, then in such circumstances, the Trial Court could not have come to the definite conclusion about the encroachment. The view taken by the lower Appellate Court is possible view. In that light of the matter, the second appeal sans substantial question of law and same is dismissed, however, with no other as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/March. 11