1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2009 Musasha s/o Vaijirsha .. APPELLANT VERSUS Supdusha s/o Imamsha & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.L. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19 th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the judgment recorded by the District Judge – 3, Aurangabad on 16-6-2009 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 213/2004 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 14-7-2004 in Regular Civil Suit no. 156/2000 came to be set aside. 2 Appellant / plaintiff instituted suit claiming removal of encroachment to the extent of 11 gunthas of land. Defendants controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff contending that there are several defects in the measurement alleged to have been conducted. Trial court found 2 favour with the plaintiff, however, the first appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. First appellate court has reversed the decree on three grounds viz., that there is difference between the old survey record and the record prepared during the implementation of the consolidation scheme, plaintiff has not placed any evidence explaining the difference in the are mentioned as per the old survey record and the record prepared at the time of implementation of the consolidation scheme and lastly, the plaintiff has not placed on record the map drawn by the competent authority while carrying out consolidation scheme. Another defect that has been found by the first appellate court is in respect of inclusion of the portion occupied by the road in the encroached portion demonstrating it as encroachment at the instance of the defendants. Area occupied by the public road cannot be considered for drawing an inference in respect of alleged encroachment by the party. Considering the defects stated above, the first appellate court found it appropriate to reverse the decree passed by the trial court. 3 I have perused the judgment delivered by the first appellate court. I find that the reasons recorded by the first appellate court are proper and based on appreciation of evidence placed on record. No substantial 3 question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa811.09.odt