1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2003 Anna Balgonda Patil (Jakacha)........Appellant versus Mahavir Annasaheb Patil (Jakecha)........ Respondent. Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi for the Appellant Mr. A.M. Kulkarni h/f A.S. Suryavanshi for the respondent CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kulkarni for respondent. The appellant/plaintiff's suit for removal of encroachment of area of 5 Ares was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court. In order to establish the encroachment of an area of 5 Ares, the appellant examined the DILR. The appellant is also relied upon the map at Exh.25. The lower courts below however did not consider the evidence of DILR and map at Exh.25 on the ground that the work of commission was not carried out as per the direction of the court and he has not taken into account the real position of the land. 2 In my considered view this findings recorded by the lower courts below are correctly recorded after appreciating the evidence on record. Appreciation cannot be said to be perverse. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. There is no merit in the second appeal. Second appeal is therefore dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)