(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2005 Shashikant s/o. Manoharprasad Bajpai, Age : 47 years, .. Appellant Occupation : Service, (Original R/o. Khandoba Galli, Latur. plaintiff) versus Jai Malhar Khandoba Devasthan Mandir through four trustees : 1. Shantilal Nayanji Shah, .. Appeal already Age : Major, dismissed as against Occupation : Business, respondent no.1. R/o. Behind Usha Kiran Theatre, Latur. 2. Gurunath s/o. Kashinathappa Khubba, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Khandoba Lane, Latur. 3. Shantappa Basvanappa Khubba, .. Respondents Age : 70 years, (Original defendants) Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Khandoba Lane, Latur. 4. Chanappa Basvanappa Khubba, .. Respondent no.4 Age : 65 years, deleted. Occupation : - , R/o. Khandoba Lane, Latur. (2) ....................... Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the appellant. Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.1, as per court's order dated 4-3-2010. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Respondent no.4 deleted vide court's order dated 4-2-2010. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, extensively. 2. The dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 370/1990 led the plaintiff to file Regular Civil Appeal No. 167/2001, before the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur, who confirmed the judgment of dismissal against the plaintiff and hence the same is criticised in the Second Appeal. (3) 3. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed against respondent no.1, Shantilal, by order dated 4th March 2010, while respondent no.4 (original defendant no.4), Chanappa, is deleted by order dated 4th February 2010. 4. The plaintiff claim that there was an encroachment in his property, however, the analysis of evidence demonstrated that there is no such eventuality. The plaintiff could not establish that the original plot was subdivided into eight plots and each one is comprising 37.5 X 50 feet in dimensions. The request for D.I.L.R. was entertained vide Exhibit 58, as it was not pressed. 5. The defendant had a specific defence, denying the area of 100 X 150 feet having been owned by the plaintiff and that there was an encroachment made on the plot referred as plot "C" from western side of Devasthan. 6. In earlier proceedings, being Special Civil Suit No. 142/1992, between plaintiff and one Baswanna, the entire plot was measured through court commissioner, the map was produced at Exhibit 76 and the area was shown having been reduced into 6 feet from northern side. The court has recorded, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that (4) the original plot was divided into 8 equal plots of 37.5 feet. These observations, being in tune with the fact situation, the appeal does not project any substantial question of law to be formulated. 7. The Second Appeal sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa594