1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2005 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2005 Baburao Kachru Divekar Died L. R.s. .. .. Appellants Versus Ratan Rama Divekar and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. S. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri P. S. Shinde appearing for the appellants. These two appeals arise out of two different suits. One filed by the respondents and one filed by the present appellant. Both filed suits for perpetual injunction. It is also clear that appellant and respondents are owners of adjoining lands and there is dispute regarding the boundaries. The appellant claimed boundary of his land up to a brook. The learned 2 advocate has taken me through the judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court in both the appeals. 2. So far as second appeal No. 1659 of 2005 is concerned, he referred to the para 8 of the judgment of the Trial Court and stated that there was no actual disturbance of the possession of defendant, but merely because there are some probabilities, the suit is decreed. In this case there was dispute between the parties regarding boundaries as seen from the discussion of issue No. 1. The measurements were carried out and boundary marks were fixed by D.W. 2. Said measurement was carried out by D.W. 2 Tulshiram Salve at the directions of Tahsildar under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and since wrong boundaries shown by the plaintiff which were not consistent with the proved map, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction, that we can gather from the portion of para 6 of the judgment. 3. So far second appeal No. 850 of 2005 is concerned, it is argued that suit is decreed merely because the suit filed by appellant was dismissed, but that does not appear to be so. I have considered the detailed discussion made by the Trial Court in para 7 and 8 of his judgment. It is considered, the evidence regarding the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint by present appellant, the Court has relied upon. The measurement which were carried out and map which is produced at Exh. 69. So respondents have given correct boundaries and therefore, 3 their suit is decreed and plaintiff's suit was not allowed. There are concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law arise in these matters. The appeals cannot be admitted and same are dismissed and disposed of at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [ P. R. BORKAR, ] JUDGE bsb/June09/FA 225.93