FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.931 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard Mr.K.M.Babhulgaonkar, learned advocate holding for Mr.P.G.Rodge, advocate for the appellant. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. His suit for removal of encroachment came to be dismissed. His appeal against the dismissal of suit also was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Mr.Babhulgaonkar, submits that when the encroachment was explicit from the map (Exh. 27) drawn by the surveyor, the suit ought to have been decreed and that is the substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. I do not agree. The reason is that both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the cadastral surveyor did not show in the map (Exh.27) the area covered by the northern public road. The description of the land as given in the claim clause was not found in accordance with the details shown in the map (Exh.27). The Surveyor did not show the area covered under the road and the topography of the land. The Courts below appreciated the version of cadastral surveyor - PW Ashok Kamble and held that it was not trust worthy. Under these circumstances, it will have to be said that the findings recorded by the Courts below are only that of facts and the inferences are based on relevant material available on record. No substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.15.12.2009. asp/office/sa931.09