-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006 Anil Sadashiv Jagtap : Appellant v/s Kantilal Dasu Vyavahare & anr. : Respondents S.S. Patwardhan Advocate for appellant S.S. Shah advocate for respondents Coram :R.M. Savant,J Date:15.7.2008 P.C. 1. This appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dt. 31.10.2005 passed by the learned additional district Judge Pandharpur in Civil Appeal no. 10/2004. 2. Appellants herein is the original plaintiff who filed Regular Civil Suit no. 98/98 for perpetual injunction in respect of property bearing gat no.1340 admeasuring 38-Anes situated at Pandharpur. In the said suit the respondents herein filed their written statement and according to the defendants the property bearing gat no.1340 is situated on the southern side of the Karkamb-Aran road and therefore the relief of injunction could not be granted to the plaintiff on the basis of evidence that was before the trial court. The suit filed by the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed. -2- 3. Against the dismissal of the said suit the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal no.104/2004 in which the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed. 4. In so far as the evidence is concerned as many as three witnesses of the plaintiffs had deposed that the land in question is situated on the southern side of the Karkamb-Aran road. In fact Shri Sunil Khilare PW3 has deposed to the fact that while carrying out the measurement of the land gat no. 1340, which is the suit land, it was not found within the four boundaries given by the plaintiff in the suit. PW2 Vishnu has stated that the Karkamb Aran road is on the northern side of the said land gat no.1340. An admission of the PW2 has also been recorded in the judgment of the appellate court that the said Karkamb-Aran road is on the northern side of the said land. The boundaries given by the plaintiff are also different than the boundaries mentioned in the agreement by which the vendor of the plaintiff derived title to the said property. Both the court below have recorded findings of fact on the basis of the evidence that was before them. 5. In my view the challenge raised in the second -3- appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal the civil application does not survive and is disposed of as such. 7. The papers called from the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Maharashtra State to be sent back forthwith. (R.M. Savant,J)