1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 145/2008 Balaji Deorao Patil Pomnalkar, ...Appellant. versus Vishwanath Lingoji Gaikwad (Died L.R) Chandrakalabai w/o Vishwanath Gaikwad and others ..Respondents. Smt. P.V. Mandlik, Senior counsel, for appellant Shri P.M. Nagargoje h/f Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar Advocate for respondents no.1/1 to 1/3, 2 & 3. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Date : 31-03-2010 PER COURT : 1 The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts, questions the findings and desires to translate to treat it as substantial question of law between the parties. The factual matrix illustrates, plaintiff being owner of land survey no.133 Gat no.270, he feels that triangular portion of 5 R across the road was part of his property and it has been encroached upon by the defendants. The defendants successfully established before the courts that the pieces of plots were given to them by Government which was basically land Survey no.131 and they were put in possession by the 2 revenue authorities, being kabala issued in their names for respective plots no.5, 6 and 7. On analysis of this factual details, both courts did not agree to the contention of the plaintiff about encroachment of 5 R of the land beyond Umari - Bhokar road at northern side. The measurement to which plaintiff sought reliance as could be seen, was of earlier proceedings, in R.C.S No.103/1985 which was withdrawn. It was noticed by both the courts that the measurements referred in earlier proceeding, was indeed without the requisite legal procedure. Taking these facts into consideration, no substantial question of law could be formulated. Second appeal sans merit, dismissed. Liberty to the plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceeding permissible in the law. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J) tsk/sa145.08