1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 946 of 2006 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri M.D. Shinde, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This second appeal is filed by original defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No. 174 of 1998 decided by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangakhed, on 21.11.2000, whereby defendant was directed to hand over possession of 34 R. from land survey No.185/2/A, which is said to be encroached and shown in blue colour in the map prepared by surveyor PW-2 Kukade at Exh.39. Said judgment and decree is confirmed by Additional District Judge, Parbhani in Regular 2 Civil Appeal No.5 of 2001 decided on 13.7.2004. 3. Both the Advocates have taken me through the judgment of the trial court and also of first appellate court. First appellate Court discussed entire evidence and particularly discussion in paragraph 15 of its judgment indicates that the plaintiff had examined one Shri Kukde as PW-2 from the office of T.I.L.R. and on issuing notices to both sides, measurements of the lands were carried out by using plain table method and at that time encroachment of 34 R. portion was found and accordingly he had prepared map Exh.39. 4. Discussion shows that one Kishan Bachate, who was present at the time of measurement, was examined. Cross examination of this witness did not bring any significant material on record. Even defendant Ramrao examined at Exh.15, stated that since there was dispute over the land between him and the plaintiff, he also made application for measurement to T.I.L.R. Evidence 3 of PW-2 kukde is scrutinized by both the courts carefully and after going through the reasons recorded by the courts, I am satisfied that those are adequate. Present appellant did not seek superior test by requesting the courts to remeasure the land through D.I.L.R. Even notice issued was not replied. 5. After going through the judgments and reasons given by the courts below, I am of the view that there is no perversity. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. There are concurrent findings by both the courts. Hence, second appeal dismissed at admission stage. Date:17/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa946.06