1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2000 Manikrao S/o Jijabhau Ranjwan .. Appellant Versus 1. Eknath S/o Vaijnath Kulthe, Died through L.R.'s Prabhakar Eknath Kulthe and others .. Respondents Shri A. G. Dalal, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate h/f Shri D. J. Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri A. G. Dalal, the learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1992 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Beed dated 16.06.1999, but also against the findings, judgment and decree of dismissal of suit as per the judgment dated 28.08.1992 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 1978 passed by the 2 Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon. 2. Thus there are concurrent findings recorded against the plaintiff/appellant who filed suit for removal of encroachment and for delivery of possession of the encroached portion admeasuring 5 feet x 21 feet hold by the defendant who is adjoining plot owner. Both the parties are thus neighbourers and holding adjacent plots from two separate vendors who are also brothers and had acquired the property in partition. Both the parties have occupied the plots almost at same period. They were purchased by them and since then there is dispute about the encroachment. The defendant also believe that there was some encroachment by the plaintiff, so he also filed counter claim, but his counter claim too was dismissed. But he had not challenged it further. Thus both the parties have a dispute of boundary of one side. It is a common dispute between the plot holders who purchased the plot from two different vendors and did not take care to get their boundaries fixed and maintained by a pakka compound wall. It is a dispute like L.O.C. disturbing their peace and additionally put them for expenditure for litigation as they were advised to do so. It is informed that, there is no regular N. A. order passed and there is no approved lay out or sanctioned map of the property which is situated at Majalgaon. Thus, there is no official record about the actual measurement and identity of the plot. 3. Thus it is seen that, both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiffs claim in absence of evidence on the point of encroachment except this. There is no other question required to be decided. The Second appeal is therefore, dismissed on merits 3 summarily at the stage of admission with liberty to both the parties to raise their claims only after the boundaries are fixed by the concerned authority by summoning respective vendors and in their presence after proper N. A. order is passed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09