1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2008 (Diwakar Banga Ughade vs. Dada Gangaram Ughade & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 14, 2009. The appellant is plaintiff, who is challenging the reversing appellate Court judgment. His suit was for declaration that he is owner of field Khasra No. 304/6 which he purchased on 9.5.1951 from one Muka Shimpi. He further sought declaration that defendant No.1 in the suit i.e. present respondent No.1 got executed a bogus/ fictitious sale deed in his name in the year 1959 from Suryabhan in relation to the very same property. The trial Court found that the plaintiff purchased field Khasra No. 304/6 and defendant No.1 claimed to have purchased field Khasra No. 325/4 from Suryabhan. It further found that field Khasra No. 304/6 and 325/4 were one and the same. The defendants then approached the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has considered the evidence adduced and found that Field Survey No. 325/4 was having Old No. 785 and 2 Field Khasra No. 304/6 was having old No. 784. It also found that old No. 784 was situated in the East side adjacent to Field No. 785. It also made reference to Consolidation Map Exh. 54 and found that Khasra No. 325/4 was shown to be bounded on its East side by field of original plaintiff Banga. This was also so appearing in the sale deed Exh. 71. On the basis of this material, it found that the trial Court was wrong in concluding that Khasra No. 325/4 and 304/6 were the same. It recorded a finding that both the fields were different. This consideration is not shown to be either erroneous or perverse. The order allowing appeal cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE *GS.