1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.563 OF 1991 Date of decision:25/3/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/563-91sa 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.563 OF 1991 1. Hanmanth s/o Dhondiba Patil, Aged 35 years, Occupation Agril., r/o. Wannali, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. ...APPELLANT ORIG.DEFT.NO.1 VERSUS 1. Vithalrao s/o Gangaram Patil, Aged 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o. Wannali, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. (2. Shamrao s/o Peeraji, aged 60 yrs., Occu.Agril., r/o Wannali, Taluka Degloor, Dist: Nanded.) ( Abated vide Additional Registrar's order dt.5.8.1992 against respondent no.2.) ...RESPONDENTS (No.1 Orig.Plff. No.2 Orig.Deft.2) ... Appellant served through Court service notice. Mr. A.S.Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 25/3/2010 *** 3 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. A.S.Deshmukh, Counsel for respondent no.1/original plaintiff. 2. The original defendant no.1 is in Second Appeal, challenging concurrent findings against him. The appeal was admitted on 4.9.1992, on the substantial question of law as to interpretation of Exh.33 map and its value. 3. Both the Courts, based on the evidence, recorded that there was an encroachment by the defendant/appellant on the land survey No.5, Gat No.10, in tune with the measurement map. There is no controversy about the respective ownership of the parties to their lands. The encroachment that has been pointed in the map is 13 R. of the portion. The defendant was found to have caused such encroachment on the suit property belonging to the plaintiff, the description whereof is also provided. The map was prepared by the Cadestral Surveyor, after effecting service to both the sides, by spot verification. No fault, indeed, could have been pointed out to the exercise carried by the Cadestral Surveyor in causing the measurement. The sale deeds at Exhs.67 and 68, could not establish that the portion of the plots were part of the land survey no.5 owned by the plaintiff. Though sale deeds were, in fact, not 4 pointed out to the plaintiff during the course of cross examination. 4. The findings recorded by both the courts, cannot be said to be perverse. The substantial question of law referred above, is answered, no scope left to interpretation of the map Exh.33. The map will have to be read in evidence as it has been proved by the competent authority. Substantial question of law formulated is answered in the negative. Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application No. 3950/1991 in SA No.563/1991 is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/563-91sa