1 57 sa 596.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.596 OF 2010 Shri Tukaram Karbhari Darekar ..Appellant. Vs. Smt.Durgabai Trimbak Shete & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.N.Joshi for appellant. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 12/01/2011. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2 This second appeal is preferred by original defendant against concurrent judgment and decree passed by both the courts. 3 A few facts of the matter are as under: Respondents/original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.425 of 1980 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Niphad for possession of encroached portion of area 2 R and half share in tamarind trees. Said Regular Civil Suit No.425 of 1980 was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Niphad by judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1987 directing appellant/original defendant to handover the peaceful possession of land ad-measuring 2 R portion of Gat No.359 to 2 57 sa 596.10.doc the respondents/original plaintiffs. The trial court further held that respondents/original plaintiffs are entitled to recover sum of Rs.300/- from the appellant as past mesne-profit of the last three years for his half share in the two tamarind trees. The trial court also held that an enquiry be made as to future mesne- profit under Order 20, Rule 12 (1)(c ) of Civil Procedure Code. 4 Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree the appellant/original defendant preferred Civil Appeal no.379 of 1987 in the court of District Judge at Nashik. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nashik on 7th June, 1995. 5 Being aggrieved by concurrent findings of both the courts below, appellant/original defendant preferred this second appeal in this court on 16th October, 1995. 6 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/original defendant submits that both the courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that appellant encroached respondents land to the extent of 2 R. He submits that the court below erred in holding that the measurement made by the surveyor in respect of disputed land was according to law. On the basis of these submissions, he submits that this is a fit case to set aside the concurrent findings of both the courts below: 3 57 sa 596.10.doc 7 I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the land of area of 2 R alleged to have been encroached by the respondents/original plaintiffs land bearing Block No.364. The Land blocks of the appellant and respondents are adjacent. 8 The land was measured twice and the last measurement was made by the Commissioner, Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR), after remand of the matter. 9 The surveyor found that the appellant encroached on the land of the respondents to the extent of 2 R. He submitted the sketch map Exhibit-88 drawn by him. He stood the cross- examination well. Both the courts have relied upon his testimony. 10 I see no reason to differ with the concurrent findings of the two courts below as regard the half share in the product of the two tamarind trees standing on the bandh (boundary) between the fields of the parties. Both the courts have found in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and their concurrent findings cannot be interfered in the second appeal. 11 There is no substance in the second appeal and no substantial question of law is involved, hence, appeal stands rejected at the stage of admission. (K.K.Tated, J.)