Brief facts of the case are that the parties owned agricultural land adjoining each other in Mouza Sirsi.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer S.D.O. for short , Umrer, and got the field re measured as per the old record.
A resurvey was done in Digitally signed by RACHNA Date 2019.09.17 175417 IST Reason the year 1991 and in the resurvey the land of the defendant was shown to be 5.3 hectares, which was in excess by 1.07 hectares.
It would be pertinent to mention that an appeal was filed by the defendant against the order of the S.D.O. before the Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case to the S.D.O. for fresh inquiry and fresh order.
On 03.01.2005 the Civil Judge decreed the suit and held plaintiffs to be entitled to possession and directed the defendant to deliver the possession of the disputed land.
It has been strenuously urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant that, in fact, the boundary between the two fields companytained trees and this was proved by the evidence on record.
The plaintiffs Respondents before us filed a suit claiming that the ancestral land of the plaintiffs was about 6.07 hectares, and to the south of the field of the plaintiffs lay the defendants Appellant before us field and the area of the land Signature Not Verified owned by the defendant was 4.23 hectares.
Defendant filed a regular civil appeal challenging this order and the appeal was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge on 03.05.2008.
The Superintendent of Land Record of Nagpur verified the spot on 27.11.2002 and submitted a proposal report to the D.O. Since the order passed was against the plaintiffs, therefore they had brought this suit for possession.
In the revenue record, the area and maps of the plaintiffs field as well as 7/12 extract of the field of plaintiffs was companyrected.
Thereafter, the S.D.O. by his order dated 31.07.2000 directed the Taluka Land Inspector for companyrection of revenue record whereby the original position of the field was restored.
Challenging this, the appellant filed a second appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 28.01.2009.
The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant erected wire fencing, encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was filed for possession of the land encroached by the defendant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby the second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that numbersubstantial question of law arose.
These are pure finding of facts which cannot be interfered with in these proceedings.
