1 SA 422.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Smt.R.D.Reddy,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.H.I.Pathan, Advocate for Resp.no. 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for declaration of ownership to the extent of 2 H. 39 R. and for possession of the encroached area. The trial Court partly decreed the Suit. The plaintiff aggrieved thereby, preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also partly allowed the Appeal declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of 2 Acres 22 gunthas. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Smt. R.D. Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Court below has not properly considered the area of the land held by 2 SA 422.2010 the plaintiff. The sale deeds are executed in favour of the appellant. The encroachments have been committed by the defendants of 9 gunthas and 30 gunthas, which has also not been considered. The Pot Hissas are there. Even the measurement report of the Surveyor are not properly considered by the Courts below. 3. Per contra, Mr. Pathan, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence. No encroachment has been committed by the defendants and the measurement which is carried out was not reliable. Both the Courts have concurrently held to that effect. 4. Perusal of the Judgment shows that the Courts have taken into consideration the various sale deeds executed and the lower appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of 2 Acres 22 gunthas from old S.No. 35. It has also been observed that thrice the lands were measured and in each and every measurement, the measurer could not make the position clear. One of the surveyors claimed that Tukaram is in possession of 9 R. land of Ahemadbee while other surveyor claims that Tukaram is in possession of 10 R. land. The 3 SA 422.2010 surveyor is also unable to give the Pot Hissas and the separate shares. The surveyor also did not examine as to how much area is belonging to the holder. The anomalies in the measurement has been considered by the Courts below. 5. The Courts below have assessed the evidence on record properly and have arrived at correct finding, which is based on appreciation of evidence. The Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 422.2010