1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2008 (Amruta Raghuji Kale through LRs Shriram & Ors. vs. Arjuna Bhikaji Nagulkar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 30, 2009. The matter was heard earlier and was adjourned to today. Today again I have heard Shri Ghuge, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff. The dispute between the parties is in relation to obstruction to plaintiff's possession over 8 Gunthas of land. The trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim of present appellant by holding that the appellant – defendant is in possession of said 8 Gunthas portion. The lower appellate Court reversed that judgment by noticing the admissions given by the appellant – defendant that he was and is in possession of total 1 Hectare and 26R or 1 Hectare 27R of land from Gat No. 542 which earlier was having Survey No. 92/1. It has also considered the relevant revenue records in the light of this admission and it found that 8 Gunthas land which the plaintiff claimed to be in his possession was not proved to be in his possession by 2 the appellant – defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to show that there was an old map which formed subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 157 of 1963 and in that map 8 Gunthas land was shown in possession of present appellant – defendant. However, that suit was not in relation to possession and there right to way of passing over the suit property was in dispute. Though the trial Court decreed the counter claim, it has not recorded any finding that 8 Gunthas land was over and above the land of 1 Hectare 26 R of 27R in possession of present appellant. The lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the position and found that the accuracy of said map was never proved and in 1984- 85 consolidation scheme was implemented in the village. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to point that the documents in relation to consolidation scheme were not produced on record and hence merely because the scheme was implemented that was not sufficient to discard the old map. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Sitaramacharya (D) through LRs vs. Gururajacharya (D) through LRs, reported at AIR 1997 SC 806, which speaks of the previous admission of a party 3 and its relevance is, therefore, not relevant in the present circumstances. As this map was not accepted by the plaintiff, it should have been proved independently by the appellant. The Appellate Court has rightly not accepted that map and it cannot be conducive of appellants possession. It is to be noticed that the lower appellate Court has considered the admission given by the appellant himself along with revenue record and also the evidence of government Surveyor – Chandrakant Kulkarni and thereafter the findings have been reached. Thus, it is not that the finding has been delivered only by discarding the said map. I do not find any substantial question of law arising in Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant states that interim order protecting his possession is operating and it should be continued for a period of six weeks from today. The request is being strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, in the interest of justice, interim order is continued for a period of six weeks from today and shall cease to operate thereafter automatically. JUDGE *GS.