1 SA372/05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2005 Hanifkha Najirkha Pathan, Aged 78 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Sarbete, Talukak Amalner, District Jalgaon (deceased) Through Legal Representatives : Appellants 1 Rahim Hanif Kha, Aged 73 years, Occupation Nil, 2 Gulam Nabi Hanifkha, Aged 59 yrs, Occupation Agriculture, 3 Mohammad Husain Hanifkha, Age 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, 4 A. Karimkha Hanifkha, Age 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5 A. Kadar Hanifkha, Aged 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, 6 Ibrahim kha Hanifkha, Aged 43 years, Occupation Agriculture, 7 Shakeel Ahmad Hanifkha, Aged 41 years, Occupation Service, 8 Akeelkha Hanifkha, Aged 38 years, Occupation Service, 9 Ismailkha Hanifkha, Aged 32 years, Occupation Labour, 10 Vakeelkha Hanifkha, Aged 26 years, Occupation Labour All resident of At Post Sarbete, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon 11 Fatemabi Ganikha, Aged 51 years, Occupation Household, R/o At. Po. Dongargaon, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad 12 Khudejabi Jafarkha, Age 47 years, Occupation Household, R/o At. Po. Ajintha, (Tripola), Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad 13 Najemabi Abid Husainkha, Age 34 years, Occupation Household, R/o Amalner, (Kasali Mohalli), Dist. Jalgaon 14 Najerabi Ahmad Ajijkha, Age 22 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Kholapur, (Mewatpura), Tq. Bhatkulli, District Amravati V E R S U S Bebibai d/o Pundalik Patil, Aged 39 years, Occupation Service, R/o. Sarbete, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon Respondent Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the appellants Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent-sole CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 19th July, 2011 2 SA372/05 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal challenges concurrent findings of the Courts below (Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amalner in Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 1985 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, District Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1995) that the appellant / plaintiff could not show title to the disputed plot of land, situated at village Barbete Bk., Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. 3. With the help of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I perused the entire record and found that the appellant / plaintiff indeed could not prove that the disputed plot, which is shown as plot-A on the Commissioner’s report (Exh.23) or part of it, belonging to him. The appellant / plaintiff produced on record an old map drawn in 1952 by revenue officers to show the location of his plot, which then was found to be admeasuring about 58’ x 58’. This map even then showed that there was boundary dispute between appellant / plaintiff’s predecessor and respondent / defendant’s predecessor. Admittedly, plot admeasuring 58’ x 58’ belonging to the appellant / plaintiff was an open plot of land and it remained open till today. When the Commissioner, in 1985, visited the suit area, he found that the appellant / plaintiff was in occupation of only a structure admeasuring about 12’ x 18’. He found that the area surrounding this structure mainly on the east side is utilized as road. The Commissioner's report shows that the appellant / plaintiff no longer possessed a plot of land admeasuring 58’ x 58’. In last 35 years, probably, the location underwent drastic change and the appellant / plaintiff could control only the area of the plot under his structure. Before filing of the suit, the appellant / plaintiff admittedly did not get his plot measured and the boundaries fixed. In absence of such evidence and in view of the present position of the property in dispute, the appellant / plaintiff 3 SA372/05 indeed could not have proved that the disputed plot-A shown in Commissioner’s report (Exh.23) belonged to him. The learned Judges of the Courts below committed no error in dismissing the suit. No substantial question of law arose in this appeal. Therefore, second appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/sa/372/05/19/7/11