1 57-sa-696-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.696 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.382 OF 2011 Shri Jagannath S. Thombare .. Appellant V/s. Shrirang @ Shrikant M. Salunkhe .. Respondent. Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant. 2 Respondent had filed Regular Civil Suit No.168 of 2002 in the Court of C.J.J.D, Vaduj, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing C.S. No.1514 ad-measuring about 213.8 sq. meter. In the Written Statement, the Appellant did not seriously dispute the 2 57-sa-696-2010.sxw ownership of the Plaintiff to C.S. No.1514, but it was contended that an application for recording his name as heir of Shri Shivaji K. Thombare in respect of the C.S.No.1515 has been filed, which was pending. By the Judgment and Order dated 25th October, 2007, the learned C.J.J.D, Vaduj, partly decreed the suit, declaring that C.S. No.1514 was owned by the Plaintiff’s family, but the relief of injunction was declined on the finding that the Defendant had not obstructed the possession of the Plaintiff. 3 Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff in the District Court, Satara along with the Cross Objection filed by the Respondent, regarding the refusal to grant decree for injunction, were heard and by impugned Judgment and Order dated 28th October, 2010, the learned Additional Judge-I, Vaduj dismissed the Appeal and the Cross Objection. 4 The learned Advocate for the Appellant relied on the Provisions of Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to contend that since the Plaintiff had not filed the sketch along with Plaint, the suit ought to have been dismissed. It is also contended that once the eastern boundry of the said premises was disputed, it was for the Plaintiff to prove the correctness of the area of the suit premises. 3 57-sa-696-2010.sxw 5 This submission is devoid of substance, since the present suit is not for removal of encroachment and the Plaintiff had given correct survey number, area and four boundaries of the suit property. 6 The Trial Court has considered the entire dispute in its proper perspective on the basis of the pleadings in Plaint and Written Statement and the evidence led by the parties and has recorded that there is no serious dispute about the ownership of the Plaintiff in respect of the C.S. No.1514. The District Court has concurred with the said findings and held that the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not require interference; by relying on the City Survey extracts and the map. The findings recorded by Trial Court and in paragraph 8 of the Judgment of the District Court clearly show that the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of facts which are based on appreciation of the evidence on record. 7 It was lastly contended that the Appellant has filed some application before the Survey Authority for correction of the record. No details of such application are available and apparently, there is discrepancy in the Written Statement and the deposition of the Appellant as to what is the exact nature of these proceedings. If the Appellant has filed any proceedings for correction of the boundry, the same will have to be considered by the concerned competent authority in accordance with the 4 57-sa-696-2010.sxw law and within the parameters of jurisdiction available with the said authority. 8 No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 9 In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 382 of 2011 does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)