(1) SA. 778.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2008 1] Najma Begum w/o Khaja Moinuddin Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agri., and House Hold Resident of Railway Colony, Purna, Taluka Purna District Parbhani 2] Khaja Moinuddin S/o Rahimoddin, Age : 44 years, Occu.: Service, Resident of as above .. Appellants Versus 1] Laxman S/o Shankar Sadhu, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Panchsheel Nagar, Purna Taluka Purna, District Parbhani 2] Arjun S/o Shankar Sadhu, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Business, Resident of as above 3] Prakash S/o Shankar Sadhu, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Business, Resident of as above .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10701 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2008 Najma Begum W/o Khaja Moinuddin and anr. .. Applicants Versus Laxman S/o Shankar Sadhu and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the Appellants Mr. S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to3 (2) SA. 778.2008 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The second appeal is challenging the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Parbhani in Regular Civil Appeal no. 164 of 2006. The appellants’ suit came to be dismissed only because the appellants could not describe the piece of land for which they had filed the suit for permanent injunction. 2] From the narration of the facts, it is seen that the appellants purchased four pieces of lands which according to them, are adjoining to each other. The boundaries of the four pieces of land described in the individual sale deeds, are obviously different than the boundaries of the consolidated one piece made by joining four pieces of lands together. It seems, before filing of the suit, the appellants made an application for joint measurement and fixing of the boundaries, but the District Inspector of Land Records, probably mischievously avoided the measurement and fixing of the boundaries, saying that the appellants were not found in possession. The D.I.L.R. had no business to give a ‘finding’ about the possession etc. He was under an obligation to fix the boundaries of the pieces of lands purchased by the appellants with the (3) SA. 778.2008 help of the original record and the permanent markings on the locations. His failure to demarcate the boundaries of the lands purchased by the appellants, thus created problem for the appellants and the respondents, it seems, took advantage of the lack of clarity in respect of the boundaries of the lands purchased by the appellants. Due to this, the suit of the appellants came to be dismissed. 3] I think, the appellants should be advised to get the boundaries of their land demarcated first and then sue the adversaries to keep them out. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. Liberty is granted to the appellants to file fresh suit, on the same cause of action, after getting the boundaries of their lands fixed through proper Agency. 4] In view of the dismissal of the second appeal no. 778 of 2008, civil application no. 10701 of 2008 does not survive and stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/22july9/SA778.08