1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 514/2010 (Mallesham Balnna Pallewar VERSUS Jivan Babusing Jadhao & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Sharma h/f Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant no.3. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs against respondent nos.2 to 5 restraining the defendant nos.1 and 2/respondent nos.1 and 2 and the appellant-defendant no.3 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of property in Gat No.210/2 and the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had no concern over the suit land but, the defendant nos.1 to 3 were falsely claiming to be the owners of the suit land. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, they were the owners of the suit land, which was comprised in Gat No.211 and the plaintiff's suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The defendants filed a counter claim on the plea that they were the owners of the 2 suit property, which fell in Gat No.211 and a further plea that the plaintiffs were threatening to dispossess them from the suit property. The trial and the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that they were the owners of the suit property comprising of 7 ARE of land which was a part of Gat No.210/2. The Courts held that the defendants had failed to prove that the suit property was a part of Gat no.211 of which they were the owners. Both the Courts, while appreciating the evidence on record, mainly relied on the report of the T.I.L.R., which stated that the suit property was a part of Gat No.210/2 and was not a part of Gat No.211. While heavily relying on the report of the T.I.L.R., the Courts observed that though the report of the T.I.L.R. was filed in the year 1999, the objection to the report of the T.I.L.R. was raised for the first time in the year 2002, in the written statement. While considering the evidence of the T.I.L.R., the Courts also considered the admission of the T.I.L.R. that he had not measured the area, which was under the nallah of Gat no.210/2 but, did not give much weightage to this admission. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that this admission should have been given great weightage by both the Courts is liable to be rejected as the question as to what weightage has to be given to a piece of evidence is a matter of appreciation of evidence and the same does not give rise to a substantial question of law. The judgment reported in 2005(12) SCC 186 (Rama Pulp and Papers Limited Versus Maruti N. Dhotre) and 3 relied on by the counsel for the appellant is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE