1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.167 OF 2009 Vishwambhar Tukaram More, R/o. Tattapur, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. ... Appellant Versus Babu Tukaram More, R/o. Tattapur, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. ...Respondent ... Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellant. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. Present Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10-09-2008 passed by District Judge-2 Latur in R.C.A. No. 54/2008 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11-02-2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,Latur in R.C.S. No. 552/2006. 2 3. It is the case of the appellant – original plaintiff that he is the owner of Plot No. 129 admeasuring 2 Hector and 38 Ares of village Tattapur, Taluka Renapur District Latur by virtue of partition between him and the defendant. The defendant is his brother. At the time of implementation of Consolidation Scheme, Survey No. 41 was converted into Block Number 128 and Block No. 129. Block No. 129 is given to 2 Hectors and 38 Ares land and shown in the name of plaintiff as per the possession given to him in the partition. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant encroached on 38 Ares of land. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to produce any document to show that the defendant encroached upon the plaintiff's land. Previously the plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 631 of 2003 in 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur against the defendant for injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession of suit land admeasuring 2 Hectors 38 Ares. In the said suit, 3 the defendant appeared and made a statement that the plaintiff was in possession of 2 Acres and 18 Ares land only. Considering the documents on record in R.C.S. No. 631 of 2003, 3rd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Latur dismissed the said suit. Against the decision of the said suit, the plaintiff had not filed any appeal. 4. Considering these facts, both the Courts below held that the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that he is in possession of 2 Hectors and 38 Ares in Block No. 129 of village Tattapur, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. The trial Court considered the judgment in R.C.S. No. 631 of 2003 in Para 8 and held that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of Block No. 129 admeasuring 2 Hectors and 18 Ares and not 2 Hectors and 38 Ares. The plaintiffs have not indicated any legal flaw in the appreciation of evidence on record by the two Courts below. Therefore, no question of law, leave apart substantial question of law, is involved in the present Second Appeal. Second Appeal 4 is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED,J.) sut/JUL09/sa167.09