(1) SA. 365.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2008 Irappa S/o Tippa Choudhari Age : 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: Village Tadmungli, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur .. Appellant VERSUS Madan S/o Govind Khulule, Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Malegaon (K), Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5105 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2008 Irappa S/o Tippa Choudhari .. Applicant VERSUS Madan S/o Govind Khulule .. Respondent Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate for the appellant-applicant Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The appellant is trying to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent-plaintiff had proved not only his title but also his possession to the extent of 3H 7R land (2) SA. 365.2008 in gat no. 51 of village Malegaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 2] The respondent filed the suit for perpetual injunction. He said that since 1962, he and his predecessor in title possessed the suit land. He said the appellant -the adjacent land owner- was trying to interfere in his possession. The appellant took up a stand that though the revenue record shows the ownership of the respondent, he is not in actual possession of the land. He also suggested that there is no portion demarcated as holding of the respondent on the spot. During the pendency of the trial as per the order of this Court, a Court Commissioner was appointed and in presence of the parties, the spot was visited. The Court Commissioner noticed that the respondent was occupying a portion of gat no. 51. It was also noticed that the appellant was occupying adjacent portion of gat no. 51. In view of this evidence the learned Judge of the trial Court held that the respondent had proved his possession to the extent of the land which he claimed. Having regard to this finding, the learned Judge held that the respondent had succeeded in proving his case. Even the appellate Court held similarly. 3] There is thus, hardly any substantial question of law arising in this appeal. The learned Advocate (3) SA. 365.2008 appearing for the appellant tried to contend that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to describe and identify his portion of land gat no. 51 and in the absence of such description and identification of the land, the decree of perpetual injunction would be futile. I am afraid this submission is based on incorrect assumption. As said above, because of the Court Commissioner’s visit the boundary demarcating separation of the lands of the parties has come on record, and it is proved that the respondent is in occupation of certain portion of land gat no. 51 and the appellant was in possession of the remaining portion. Having seen this, there is no scope now for anyone to say that the respondent-plaintiff had not described and identified his portion of land gat no. 51. 4] In view of this, the appeal does not survive. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application no. 5105 of 2008, seeking stay does not survive and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp