1 S.A. No. 1728.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.1728 OF 2004 Tulshiram S/o Jawantrao Kotkar & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Trimbak S/o Sakharam Kotkar & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. Rahul Dhase, Advocate for the appellant No. 1 Shri B.S. Kudale, for respondent Nos. 1,2-A to 2- D. ... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendant Nos. 1 & 6’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of an encroached area to the extent of 23 R land. The trial Court decreed the suit. The present appellants preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal. The defendant Nos. 1 and 6 have assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Dhase, the learned Counsel for the 2 S.A. No. 1728.2004 appellant submits that there was no notice of measurement, in absence of the notice the said measurement cannot be relied upon. The learned Counsel further contended that the evidence of cadestrayal Surveyor is also vague. He has no where shown the separate area of encroachment made by various defendants. In absence of the same, the said measurement map Exh. 79 and the deposition of the cadestrayal surveyor cannot be relied upon. According to him, the Courts below have mis-read the evidence and have come to an erroneous conclusion. 3. Shri Kudale, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion about the encroachment committed by the defendants. Moreover, the father of the defendant No. 1 was present at the time of measurement. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through 3 S.A. No. 1728.2004 the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. It has been observed that Jaywantrao, the father of defendant No. 1 was present at the time of measurement. In his presence the measurement was carried out. The evidence of cadestrayal Surveyor shows that the defendants have encroached over the area as shown in the green color in the map. It cannot be said that the same is vague. The plaintiffs would be entitled for the said area encroached from all the defendants. The other defendants have not disputed the encroachment except the present appellants. Both the Courts on evaluation of evidence have come to a possible conclusion. The Second Appeal cannot be entertained on the ground that some other conclusion could have been possible. 5. In the light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*