(1) SA. 139.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2009 Atmaram S/o Pandharinath Dhake, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Salva, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon .. Appellant Versus Shamrao S/o Keshav Dhake, Age : 76 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Salva, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondent Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate h/f. Mrs. M.L. Sangit, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The second appeal is challenging the concurrent judgments and orders passed by the lower Courts. 2] The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of 5R land against the appellant, contending that he had encroached on it. As per the revenue record, the area of the respondent's land is (2) SA. 139.2009 1.46 R and as per the same record, the land of the appellant should have been 1.26 R. But at the time of actual measurement of the land, the land belonging to the appellant was found to be 1.31 R whereas, the land belonging to the respondent was found to be 1.41 R. In view of the finding of the District Inspector of Land Records recorded prior to filing of the suit, the respondent filed the suit and succeeded at the trial stage. Even at the appellate stage he succeeded. 3] The appellant tried to contend that in 1955, when the father of the respondent and the grand-father of the appellant, made his wish and recorded it in the revenue record, that his land should be divided equally between his three sons. The area of each brother would be then 1.36 R. He therefore, contended that the land in his possession should have been 1.36 R. But the 7/12 extract showed incorrectly the area as 1.26 R. He contended that despite the equitable division of the land, the respondent with the connivance of the Revenue Officers, got recorded the area of his share larger by 10 guntha. . In other words, he contended that the area in his possession was not more as per the partition that took place in 1955. This contention, however, did not find favour in both the Courts below and so, (3) SA. 139.2009 I find no reason to interfere in the judgments passed by the lower Courts. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/20july9/SA139.09