1 (SA275.10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.275 OF 2010 Sou Pramila Akhilchandra Shitole ...Appellant. V/s Savta Vishwanath Bhujbal and another ...Respondents Mr. P.P. Killedar for the Appellant. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. Appellant is the original Plaintiff. She had filed a suit for declaration that the Respondents had encroached upon her suit land to the extent of 30 R on the Southern side. Trial Court decreed the suit. Against this order, Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal. The appeal, however, was allowed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has taken me through the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court. He submitted that in view of section 136 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, District Court ought to have remanded the matter to the competent 2 (SA275.10) authority i.e. Collector for the purpose of carrying out measurement of the suit property. He submitted that instead of remanding the matter for the purpose of carrying out measurement, District Court has discarded testimony of P.W.2 – Cadestral Surveyor who was examined by the Appellant/original Plaintiff. It is, therefore, submitted that the District Court had clearly committed a serious error in allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 and dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant/original Plaintiff. 4. It is not possible to accept the the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court. District Court has given cogent reasons while rejecting the testimony of P.W. 2 – Cadestral Surveyor who was examined by the Plaintiff. District Court has observed that testimony of P.W.2 does not inspire confidence since he had not taken proper precautions for carrying out the measurement and had taken into consideration the revenue record at the time of measurement of the property. 5. In my view, no substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal. So far as the provisions of section 136 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are concerned, the Collector is empowered to decide boundaries if a complaint is filed before him. However, that does not take away jurisdiction of the Civil Court for deciding boundary dispute 3 (SA275.10) since there is no express or implied bar under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ousting jurisdiction of the Civil Court for deciding the boundary dispute. At least no such provision was pointed out to me. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court. 6. Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)