sa5.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2011 Gurunath Shantilingappa Chingunde ...Appellant Versus Sharanappa s/o Limbu Panchbhai and another . ..Respondents ..... Mr. P.S. Patil, advocate for the appellant ..... CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellant-plaintiff could not have proved the boundaries of the suit land. 2 There are two pieces of lands about which the suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The appellant-plaintiff said that he is the owner of these two lands and is also in possession thereof. He said that the adjoining owners of the land i.e. the respondents were trying to disturb his use and enjoyment of land. However, the respondents came with a case that the description of the suit land is not correct and said that the appellant-plaintiff was trying to claim the possession and ownership of their land. The respondents admitted that the appellant-plaintiff is owner of two pieces of lands but they suggested that they are smaller in area and that they are not interested in disturbing them. In view of this sa5.11 -2- peculiar and factual aspect, the learned Judge of the courts below expected the appellant (plaintiff) to prove as to what are the correct boundaries of his land. The learned Judges of the courts below rightly observed that the appellant-plaintiff intentionally avoided to show to the court the sale deeds vide which the appellant-plaintiff had acquired these lands. These sale deeds would have certainly clarified to the Courts the boundaries of the lands the appellant/plaintiff had purchased the lands. 3 The learned Judges of the courts below further held that since the appellant-plaintiff did not submit vital information before the court they were free to draw adverse inference against him. Because of this the appellant-plaintiff failed in his suit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to suggest me that the issue as well as the points for consideration framed by the courts below are not proper and therefore, they were misled while appreciating the evidence on record. However, on perusal of the judgments of the courts below, it is clear that there was no confusion in the minds of the learned Judges and the issues were properly framed and decided. There is no error committed by the courts below. Hence, I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) rlj/