1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.197 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3292 OF 2009 Mahadu s/o Amruta Pancha, R/o-Chinchala, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Shivraj s/o Babarao Patil Thadisawliakar, R/o-Chinchala, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENT. ... Mr. U.B. Bilolikar Advocate for Appellant. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. ORDER RESERVED ON : 10TH JUNE, 2009 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 17TH JUNE, 2009 ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Bilolikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. 2 2. The present Second Appeal is filed by original plaintiff against the Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court dated 9th February, 2009. The Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2003 for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of land bearing Block No.164 admeasuring 1 Hector and 51 R s situated at village Chinchala, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded. The Appellant further prayed in the said Suit for restraining the Respondent from dismantling the South-North Bandh in between the land of the Appellant Block No.164 and land of Respondent/ original defendant bearing Block No.165 and also for perpetual injunction restraining Respondent from interfering and obstructing the peaceful possession of the Appellant over the suit land. It is the case of the Appellant that Block No.164 and 165 belonged to Gujarwad family. The land was partitioned between the two brothers Rajeshwar Sayana Gujarwad and Ramsab Sayana Gujarwad. The Block No.165 went to the share of Rajeshwar Sayana and Block No.164 went to the share of Ramsab. There is South-North Bandh between the two lands. The Respondent purchased entire Block No.165 admeasuring 1 Hector and 51 Rs for consideration of Rs.56,000/- from Rajeshwar by sale deed dated 20th June, 1989. Since then 3 the Respondent is in possession of the land as per the possession of his previous owner and cultivating the land since the date of his purchase. The Appellant has purchased 61 Rs of land from Sailu s/o Abanna Gujarwad for consideration of Rs.35,000/- and 90 Rs of land from Pushpalata w/o Gangaram for consideration of Rs.49,000/-. The lands were purchased from the respective owners by executing registered sale deed on 25th March, 1996. It is the case of the Appellant that he got the possession of the suit land as per the possession of his predecessor in title. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that the trial Court held that Appellant proved his valid title and possession over the suit land as shown bounded in the claim clause of the Plaint and also held that Appellant proved the alleged overtact at the instance of the Respondent/ original defendant. In Appeal at the instance of the Respondent/ original defendant, the Lower Appellate Court mainly relied on map at Exhibit 67 which was prepared at the time of implementation of consolidation scheme 1984. The Lower Appellate Court considered the said map in Para 9 of the Judgment. In Para 9 of the Judgment, the Lower Appellate Court has observed that, it is not disputed 4 that present Appellant is owner of Block No.164 admeasuring 1 Hector and 51 Rs. It is also not disputed before the Lower Appellate Court that the Respondent/ original defendant was owner of adjacent Block No.165. The Lower Appellate Court in Para 9 of the Judgment, after referring to the map which is drawn on village Chinchala during implementation of the consolidations scheme, 1984, observed that merely because Appellant is changing four boundaries in his Plaint, the location of Gut No.164 will not be changed which is shown in the survey map of village Chinchala prepared by the consolidation officer and as such he is not entitled to get declaration and perpetual injunction. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court after considering the map which was produced at Exhibit 67. In any case, location shown in the survey map cannot be changed by examining number of witnesses who are stating facts inconsistent with the survey map. Therefore, even though Appellant examined additional witnesses who deposed that four boundaries of Gut No.164 shown by Appellant in his Plaint were correct, their version cannot be relied upon as their evidence is contradictory to the revenue record, which came into existence after carrying out general survey and 5 implementation of the consolidation scheme. 4. On the basis of these facts and for the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present case. Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed summarily with no order as to the costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal itself, nothing survive for consideration in Civil Application No.3292 of 2009 and the same is dismissed. (K.K. TATED) JUDGE. asb/JUN09/sa197.09