JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 1998 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1992 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Wardha whereby appeal was dismissed which was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 1987 on 17-9-1992.

2. A layout of plots was carved out in Land Survey Nos. 141/1 and 141/3 at Seloo by vendor of appellant/plaintiff Yeshwant. Vendor Ashok Deshpande had retained one plot admeasuring 24 x 30 square feet, shown by letters A E F C in the plaint map. Plaintiff purchased suit plot by a registered sale deed dated 1310-1986 from Ashok Deshpande, which is shown by letters ABCD in the plaint map. Defendant purchased a plot from the same layout, shown by letters O P Q R in the plaint map whereon he constructed a residential house. In absence of plaintiff, defendant made encroachment beyond the line shown by letters O P by constructing temporary latrine (shown by letters C D). Plot purchased by plaintiff in the name of his was is bearing plot No. 23. Out of Plot No. 15 located just opposite Plot No. 23 beyond road, plaintiff has purchased an area admeasuring 10 x 30 towards road side. Respondent/defendant did not remove encroachment and that compelled appellant/plaintiff to file suit.

3. Defendant denied suit claim. He stated that he purchased his plot by registered sale deed dated 21-4-1979 from one Dajiba Talwekar, admeasuring 25 x 18. He denied purchase of plots by plaintiff for want of knowledge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal invited my attention to exhibit 42 which is a report filed by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR), Seloo along with copy of approved layout plan carved out in field survey Nos. 140/1, 140/3, mouza No. 448, Seloo which was originally belonging to Deorao Raghupatrao Deshpande. From the approved layout plan, it appears that 43 plots were carved out from the said land. It appears that TILR had conducted spot inspection. In the accompanying sketch, the TILR has indicated boundaries of plots in question and position thereof. Report was submitted by the TILR to the 1st Appellate Court.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no consideration of Commissioner's report while learned counsel for respondent submits that evidence has properly been appreciated on all fours. He submits that had the parties accepted TILR's report, dispute could have been solved then and there. However, according to learned counsel for respondent, boundaries shown in the sale deed were rightly considered by the 1st Appellate Court.

6. It is settled position of law that under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has discretion to order local investigation. The object of local investigation is not so much to collect evidence which can be taken in Court, but to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. Cases of boundary disputes and disputes about identity of lands are instances when a Court should order local investigation under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code. In order to determine whether there has been an encroachment, it is always desirable to get the fields measured by an expert and find out exact area encroached upon, Oral evidence cannot conclusively prove such an issue.

7. In Ram Kishore Sen and ors vs. Union of India and ors., reported in AIR 1966 SC 644, the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 thus :--

"(11) The question about the admissibility of the map has to be considered in the light of section 36 of the Evidence Act. The said section provides that :

'Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or places, are themselves relevan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document