1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.382 OF 2009 Mahadeo S/o Bapu Gujar and others ..Appellant V/s Mahalinga S/o Rama Gujar and anothers ..Respondent ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr.K.K.Kulkarni holding for D.G.Chewale Advocate for Appellant. Mr.V.P.Golewar for Respondent no.1 and 2. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J.) DATE : 26th February, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard.Shri.K.K.Kulkarni advocate holding for Shri.D.G.Chewale advocate for appellant and Shri. V.P.Golewar advocate appearing for respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. 3. The plaintiffs claim decree in respect of removal of encroachment against the defendants. The encroached 2 area is alleged to be 16 R land. The plaintiffs and the defendants are cousin brothers. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant had encroached upon area to the extent of 16 R out of Gut No.111. The cadestral surveyor was appointed to measure the land. The cadestral surveyor measured the property and report is placed on record. P.W.2 R.R.Rajesulwar is the measuring officer who has deposed before the Court. It transpires on perusal of the judgment of trial Court that the measuring officer has not measured total area of land Gut No.111. He has admitted that the common boundary between the lands was intact whereas he did not measure some of the portion adjoining Nala which is stated to be fallow land. The 7/12 extract also show that there is 17 R area which is pot­kharab. The trial Court has lastly recorded the finding that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and as such dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the first appellate Court in RCA No. 20/1990. 4. I have perused the judgments recorded by both the Courts below and heard the arguments advanced 3 by learned counsel appearing for respective parties. On perusal of the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that findings recorded are reasonable and proper and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant is essentially a matter relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal 5. The appeal stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE DSP/SA382.09