1 S.A.NO.224 /2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.224 OF 2009. 1. Shivaji S/o Babu Lungse & others. ...Appellants. (Ori.Defts.) VERSUS Vijay S/o Vishwanath Lungse ...Respondent. (Ori.Plaintiff) ... Mr.S.P.Urgunde, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.L.Dharashive, Advocate for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 28th August, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the respondent/plaintiff had proved that the appellants/defendants were trying to encroach on his land for the purpose of creating a new way, a short cut to have access to their lands. 2. In order to understand the location, I asked 2 S.A.NO.224 /2009. the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants to produce on record a location sketch. He produced a xerox copy of sketch and informed me that this location sketch is an admitted document before the Courts below. This location sketch explains the disputed question of facts between the parties. On the South side of the plaintiff's agricultural field, there exists an east-west pakka road known as, "Boargaon Bhada road" Adjoining to this road, the land of the respondent/plaintiff exists. To the east of the land of the respondent, exists the land of the appellant No.1 Shivaji. There is a boundary between these two lands running South-North. This boundary goes further towards North to separate the lands of the other appellants ( appellants No.2, 3 and 4) and their neighbours on east-side. The appellants took up a stand, this south-north boundary is a passage. It is in existence since more than 50 years and they have easementary right to use it. However, the Courts below held that such passage does not exist. 3. The trial Court even sent a Court Commissioner to inspect the location. The Court Commissioner did not support the appellants' case. On the other hand, the Court Commissioner supported the case of the respondent that on west side of lands of appellants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 lies a cart way which provide access to their lands. 3 S.A.NO.224 /2009. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants asserted that the Courts below committed grave error of law by placing reliance on deposition of the attorney of the respondent (the plaintiff). 4. I am afraid, this objection is not worth giving importance because the respondent brought on record other evidence also to prove his case. The Courts below thus considered the facts and decided the question of facts giving cogent reasons. There appears no reason for disturbing the same at this stage. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. 5. In view of this, Civil Application No. 9652/2007 does not survive. It stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp