(1) SA. 817.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5330 OF 2005 IN S.A. 817 OF 2005 Namdeo Sarangdhar Kusmade .. Appellant VERSUS Haribhau Vishwanath Waghmare and others .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Raut, Advocate h/f. Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for for the Appellant/Applicant ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 5TH MAY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant in the Second Appeal. Suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from obstructing peaceful possession over the suit property land bearing no.119/1 admeasuring 1 H was filed. It was further canvassed that the defendant obstructed on 8.6.2008 plowing operation of the plaintiff and restrained him and therefore, plaintiff filed suit and lost. In the first appeal being Appeal no. 56 of 1996 against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit no. 211 of 1988 having realised the difficulties, the first appellate Court directed by remanding back the matter to appoint T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner to measure the land belonging to the plaintiff and defendant and place on record the map (2) SA. 817.2005 and report. Consequent upon such directions, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division allowed parties to lead evidence and then dismissed the suit on 4.4.2000. The matter was again carried by the plaintiff before the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal no. 157 of 2000, who on analysing the position did not agree to the stand of the plaintiff dismissed the Appeal and consequently the Second Appeal. 2] The discussion of the evidence of plaintiff and of the Court Commissioner Shaikh Hasan Jamadar cadestral surveyor carried by both the Courts, indicate that the plaintiff could not establish his position over the barren land nor it could be established that the land immediately abutting streamlet belong to the plaintiff. Cultivation of the plaintiff was carved out to be the portion at the boundaries of the streamlet. 3] In the situation, the findings recorded by both the Courts against the plaintiff do not warrant to formulate any substantial question of law between the parties. Second Appeal sans merit, dismissed. No costs. Civil Application no. 5330 of 2005 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp