1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.383/2005 WITH CA NO.5655/2005. (Gorakh Gundaji Sangve Vs. Rukminbai Pandharinath Polewar) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SV Chandole, Advocate h/for Mr. VS Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellant. ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23 rd March, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The concurrent findings are questioned by the defendant. Defendant/appellant – Gorakh s/o Gundaji Sangve claimed to be owner of the property, which the plaintiff asserts to have been encroached to the extent of 8 ft. X 15 ft. The Courts, on analysis of the evidence, found that the appellant – Gorakh is found to be in possession of the plot, east-west 20 ft.33 ft. This is against his sale-deed which contemplate to be east-west 15 ft. and south-north 20 ft. The courts are also justified in recording that, at one of the boundary, there was 5 ft. wide lane, however the lane left over is only 2 ½ ft. by said Gorakh, the appellant. The 2 analysis drawn ultimately by the learned Judge was that the appellant herein has is in his possession more than his legitimate property which was indeed of the plaintiff – Rukminbai, as her sale- deed supports her contention. The findings recorded by both the Courts are in tune with the evidence, documents and particularly report of Court Commissioner (Exhibit-73). No merit in the Second Appeal, it is dismissed with CA. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/sa383.05