1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.887 OF 2009 Sopan Gangaram Khot, age: 54 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Harangul, Tq.Latur, presently residing at Near Hanuman Mandir, Vivekanand Chowk, Latur, District Latur. Appellant Versus Sow.Vimal Vilaashrao Deshmukh, age: 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o Maharashtra Housing Society, MIDC Road, Latur, District Latur. Respondent Mr.Gaddime, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th January, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard Shri Gaddime, learned Counsel holding for Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for appellant and Shri R.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel for Respondent. 2 Original defendant is raising challenge to the concurrent judgments recorded by both the Courts below. 2 3 Respondent-plaintiff instituted suit claiming recovery of possession by removing encroachment to the extent of 15 ares committed by the defendant. Plaintiff bases her claim on the basis of joint measurement conducted by T.I.L.R. Copy of the map and report of T.I.L.R. Is placed on record, so also concerned measuring Inspector has been examined as witness on behalf of plaintiff. On perusal of the evidence of plaintiff corroborated by the evidence of measuring Inspector, the trial Court has recorded finding in respect of alleged encroachment to the extent of 10 ares of land by defendant. The trial Court as well as first appellate Court, on the basis of appreciation of evidence, have recorded a finding of fact that the defendant has committed encroachment over 10 ares land towards eastern side of the property of plaintiff and as such, defendant has been directed to remove the encroachment. 3 On perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that a reasonable view has been taken by the Courts below and as such, concurrent findings recorded by Courts below need not be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 4 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa88709