1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.1441 of 2004 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri v.s. Tanwade, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri P.C. Mayure, Advocate, holding for Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar,Advocate,for Respondent No.3. ---- 1. This is a second appeal by original plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by II Additional District Judge, Osmananabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 1994 passed on 18.12.2001, whereby he allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2 Paranda, in Regular Civil Suit No.84 of 1992 decided on 27.4.1994. 2. The appellant-plaintiff has made out a case that he is owner of block No.408 of village Mankeshwar and found that present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have made encroachment over his land, to the extent of 11 R. Thereafter he filed suit for getting possession of encroached portion. The trial court decreed the suit. 3. In appeal, the first appellate court considered in paragraphs 13 to 15 of its judgment that the appellant-plaintiff claimed that he is owner and possessor of land to the extent of 3 Hectare 19 R. However, Respondents have come with a case that the appellant is purchaser of only 7 acres 25 gunthas and produced sale deed to that effect at Exh.64. In 1970, there was a consolidation scheme implemented at the village and during that scheme, 3 area of plaintiff was shown to be 3 hectare 19 R. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the first appellate court observed that the plaintiff was unable to explain increase of area of his land. It is thus held that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of only 7 acres 25 gunthas land and, therefore, has no right to claim more area than what he is purchased and of which he is the owner. 4. After going through the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the first appellate court is just and proper and not perverse and, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Hence, Second appeal dismissed at the admission stage. Date:07/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/SA1441.04