1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.527 OF 1989 Amruta Murlidhar Gondkar, Age : 35 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/oShirdi, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..APPELLANT. -VERSUS- Maruti S/o Mahadu Koli, (Since Deceased), Through L.Rs. i) Smt.Godabai Maruti Shinde, Age : 69 years, Occ : Household, R/o Shirdi, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. ii) Baburao Maroti Shinde, Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Tq.Ghoiti, Dist.Nashik. iii) Sou.Kesarbai Vitthal Gadekar, Age : 37 years, Occ : Household, R/o Dadh (BK), Tq.Shrirampur,Dist.Ahmednagar. iv) Nanasaheb Maroti Shinde, Age : 36 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. v) Vishwas Maroti Shinde, Age : 32 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Shirdi, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. vi) Balasaheb Maroti Shinde, Age : 30 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Shirdi, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. vii) Sou.Alka Mohan Anap, Age : 27 years, Occ : Household, R/o Anapwadi (Songaon), Tq.Shrirampur. 2 ..RESPONDENTS Mr.C. K. Shinde, Advocate for appellants. CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE :4TH FEBRUARY,2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the appellant-defendant could not prove (i) that he made no encroachment on the respondent-plaintiff's land and (ii) that assuming he made encroachment, he could not prove that he become the owner of the encroached area by adverse possession. 2. The facts leading to the litigation are as under:- . The appellant is the owner of the land survey no.59/1 and his uncle owned the adjoining land survey no.59/2. The respondent purchased the said land in 1955. In 1971, for the first time, the respondent- plaintiff made complaint, that portion of his land was encroached by the appellant-defendant. He got the land measured and then filed the suit. Initially, the suit was decreed, the appellant went in appeal and the first Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the case back with certain directions. Accordingly, as per the directions of the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, the lands in dispute were remeasured and the parties led fresh evidence in support of their cases. Ultimately, even after the remand of the case, the learned Judge of the Trial Court held in favour of the respondent and 3 decreed the suit. As against this, the appellant once again filed Appeal before the learned District Judge. 3. The main point raised by the appellant before the First Appellate Court was that the Cadestral Surveyor did not follow the directions given by the First Appellate Court for taking measurements of the lands afresh. He further pointed out that his plea of adverse possession, is not properly appreciated. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court considered both these plea and held against him. 4. I went through the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court and found that the arguments of the appellant's Advocate were rejected giving cogent reasons. The learned Judge held that though some of the directions given in the earlier judgment of the First Appellate Court were not followed by the Cadestral Surveyor, they were not fatal to the findings recorded. The respondent-plaintiff stated that his land survey no.59/2 admeasured 5 Acre and 20 Guntha and admittedly, the land of the appellant- defendant survey no.59/1, which is situated abutting the land of the respondent on west side admeasured 5 Acre 7 Guntha. The Surveyor obviously first fixed the boundaries of the land and then came to a conclusion about the encroachment. What he could not do, was fixing of East side boundary of respondent's land as the first step in measurements. However, having regard to the scientific method utilised by the Cadestral Surveyor, I think the ultimate finding recorded by him in respect of the encroachment can not be erroneous. 4 The other objectionable aspect of his method was that he did not utilise "chain method" for measuring the land. He explained that the "chain method" was discontinued long back and that measurements were taken with the help of "plain table method". It has not come on record that the method of plain table is in any way defective and unreliable. Both the Courts mostly recorded findings on facts. The substantial questions of law noticed by this Court (Ground Nos.IV, V, VI and VIII) at the time of admitting the appeal, and same are already dealt with. 5. In the above discussion, the appeal should therefore fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) GAS/SA527.89