1 S.A. 697 of 08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2008 Sou. Parvatibai Trimbak Anchawale died through LRs Appellants V E R S U S Sitaram Raghunath Khambat Respondent Mr. K.M. Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of encroached area of 6 Guntha. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Babhulgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the evidence of cadastral surveyor is relevant, for determining the encroachment. The measurement would show that the defendant has encroached the land. For the said purpose Shri Babhulgaonkar, 2 S.A. 697 of 08 learned counsel relies on the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of “Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi V. Dinkar Yashwant Patil, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 138” and another judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court, in a case of “Ramchandra S/o Bhikaji Jagtap V. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar dead through L.Rs. Bulkabai Padvekar & others, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 278”. According to learned counsel the defendant had claimed adverse possession and the same has not been proved, as such plaintiff is entitled for possession. The Courts below have not taken into consideration this aspect. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff is negatived even on limitation. The suit is filed on 20th March, 1993, and the plaintiff in its examination-in-chief itself stated the fact that defendant had encroached was noticed in the month of September, 1980. The suit is admittedly filed after long slumber of thirteen years i.e. after the statutory period. The Courts have also concurrently came to the conclusion that on the basis of said evidence, the encroachment has not been proved. The same is based on appreciation of evidence and the same is also plausible view. The judgments in the cases of 3 S.A. 697 of 08 Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi V. Dinkar Yashwant Patil” and “ Ramchandra S/o Bhikaji Jagtap V. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar dead through L.Rs. Bulkabai Padvekar & others” referred supra relied by the learned counsel, would be of no assistance, as in the said case matter is remitted for measurement as the High Court have held that the encroachment could be proved by measurements of land only. In present case measurement was carried out but the same did not inspire confidence in the Courts. 5. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*1574.05SA/090311