1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2006 Kashibai W/o Dashrath Chopade and others .. .. Appellants Versus Munjaji S/o Gyanba Dukare .. .. Respondent Shri Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the Appellants. Shri S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER : . Heard. 2. The concurrent findings against the defendant No. 1 Kashibai are questioned in the second appeal. Chequered history of litigation persists between the parties, however for the purposes of dealing with the present appeal, the important and material facts are only put in condensed form as under. 2 The plaintiff asserts to be exclusive owner and possessor of suit property bearing gat No. 121 from which part admeasuring 1H 12.6R situated at Dharangaon, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. She gave its four boundaries as : East - Land of Madhav Dagdoji, West - Land of Dwarkabai, South - Land of Ramrao, North - Government Road. She asserts having purchased the suit property from Vishwanath for the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- on 19.01.1989. 3. The appellant Kashibai asserts having purchased 80R of the property from one of the brother Sakharam on 29.10.1999 and was put in possession of the disputed property. The controversy revolves about northern boundary. 4. Mr. Beedkar informs, the plaintiff did not give correct boundaries, however I find that the boundaries referred by the plaintiff in the plaint, are substantiated in tune with her sale deed and also by the evidence of the witnesses supporting her. 5. Earlier suit by Kashibai (present appellant) bearing R.C.S. No. 92/2004 on identical relief being decreed. Its first appeal by present respondent Munjaji being pending, the learned Judge 3 will deal with the same on its own merits without being influenced by fate of this second appeal. The fact remain, on analysis of the evidence, the admission recorded by the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was indeed found to be in possession of the purchased land in the year 1989. Evidence of D.W. 2 Marutrao indicated that, he knows plaintiff and defendants having field property at Dharangaon. He was one of the attesting witness for the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 from Sakharam. D.W. 4 Balasaheb another farmer residing in the nearby area accepts that defendant No. 1 purchased portion of plaintiff's brother Sakharam and he was in possession of the property, however, in the cross examination, he admitted that the plaintiff is having share over the suit property purchased by the defendant. He does not know about execution of sale deed by defendant No. 1 from Sakharam, being not present at the time of execution. 6. An analysis of evidence carried by both the Courts does not demonstrate any misreading of the evidence or any illegality by both the Courts. The second appeal sans merit, warrants dismissal. The second appeal is dismissed with no costs. However, without prejudice to rights of both the parties, the 4 parties are at liberty to get the disputed land measured at their individual expenses and get the matter adjudicated properly. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] bsb/April 10