1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.102 OF 2010 APPELLANT: Wasudeo s/o Vishwanath Kawadapure VERSUS RESPONDENT: Nilkanth s/o Naryan Soor =================================================== Shri S.V.Sirpurkar & N. B. Jawade, advocates for appellant Shri A.P. Thakre, advocate for respondent =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 17.3.2010 ORDER The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession on the ground that the defendant had encroached upon 0.15 R of land belonging to the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased Survey No.129/1 and 219/2 from one Shrikant Deshpande in the years 1990 and 1993 and the total land purchased by him admeasured 1.74 hectares. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1997 the defendant encroached upon 0.15 R land belonging to the plaintiff after breaking the Dhura. The case of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the defendant was the owner of the property possessed by him and he had not encroached upon 0.15 R of land, belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. 2 2] Both the courts after considering the evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had encroached upon 0.15 R of land belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had heavily relied on the map of the Surveyor. Both the courts considered the admissions of the Surveyor and the plaintiff in their cross examination, which falsified the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached upon 0.15 R of land. The courts observed that the map was drawn by the Surveyor without obtaining the relevant papers of the entire survey numbers and had also not shown the existence of the huge trees standing near the Bandh which divided the fields of the plaintiff and the defendants. The courts observed that without cutting the huge trees it was not possible for the defendant to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. The courts held that the map drawn by the Surveyor was not accurate and the same could not be relied upon for holding that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's land. The finding recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.