1 sa458 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.458 OF 2011 Kashinath Mahadeo Thale ...Appellant vs. Vaishyawani Samaj Sangh & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.G.N.Salunke for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The Trial Court has passed a decree for removal of encroachment which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Courts below could not have relied upon the survey map at Exh.27 as the original survey record has been destroyed. His submission is that the Gat book map is on record which was a document of title. He submitted that the said document was exhibited which shows the correct area of land held by the appellant and first respondent. He submitted that the appellant produced on record the said document and examined one Mr.N.D.Kalote, a surveyor at Exh.83. He submitted that there was no reason to discard the said evidence. He submitted that there was no evidence of encroachment. 2 sa458 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The Appellate Court has noted the admitted position that the first respondent-plaintiff was the owner of land survey no.55/2 and the appellant and the 2 nd respondent were the owners of the adjoining land bearing survey no.55/1. The first respondent relied upon survey map at Exh.27. The original survey record was destroyed. However, the first respondent-plaintiff was permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing the survey map supplied to the said respondent. The observation of the Trial Court in paragraph 9 of the Judgment is that the first respondent was allowed to lead secondary evidence of the said survey map. The finding of the Appellate Court is that the said survey was carried out after notice to the first defendant. The first respondent examined one Anant Pandurang Shahane who was present at the time of carrying out survey. The survey map shows encroachment on the property of the first respondent-plaintiff.The Appellate Court considered the evidence of Surveyor Mr.Kalote examined by the appellant and the second respondent. The Appellate Court has held that at the time of survey, the first respondent-plaintiff was not present. Therefore, survey map produced by the appellant and the second respondent has been discarded. 4 In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE