1. Present appeal has been filed by original plaintiff. The appeal was admitted on 08.12.2010 on following substantial questions of law.

(i) When the Cadestral Surveyor has found encroachment and has stated that the encroachment is 1 1/2 gunthas over the share of the plaintiff and his brother each, then whether the decree ought not to have been passed ?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial Court, has come within the close quarters of the reasonings of the trial Court ?

2. Name of respondent No.1 is deleted as per order of this Court dated 18.12.2018 passed in Civil Application No.7575 of 2008. Respondent No.2 is served, however, nobody has appeared on his behalf. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Bora for the appellant. Perused the Record and Proceedings. (Parties are addressed by their nomenclature before Trial Court.)

3. Plaintiff has come with the case that he is the owner of 1 Acre 6 Gunthas land from agricultural land Sy.No.109 out of 1 Hectare 99 Ares from village Pimperkhed, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. The property has been more particularly described in para No.1 of the plaint. The said land was belonging to the father of the plaintiff, who has left behind him legal representative plaintiff and his brothers Bhiwa and Babasaheb. Father Kashinath partitioned the suit property during his lifetime and in that partition plaintiff received the said land admeasuring 1 Acre 6 Gunthas. The eastern side land was kept by Kashinath for himself, then towards western side, the land was allotted to Babasaheb and towards West further the plaintiff's land and towards West of plaintiff's land there was land of Bhiwa. It is stated that 18 Gunthas land out of land of Kashinath was acquired by Government for Dhanora to Hiwara road. Then Kashinath sold 12 Gunthas land on 22.01.1993 and 20 Gunthas land on 16.05.1996 to one Shantabai, who is the wife of plaintiff. Further, he had also sold 10 Gunthas land to one Maroti Raoji. Maruti sold the same land to the plaintiff, Babasaheb and Sindhubai which is adjacent to Dhanora road. Further, Bhiwa sold his 1 Acre 6 Gunthas land to one Anusaya and Anusaya sold said land to defendant No.2. Thus, according to the plaintiff, his land Sy.No.109 is adjacent to Sy.No.108 and Sy.No.108 is towards southern side of Sy.No.109. The land of the defendants and others is Sy.No.108. It is also stated that the width of the common boundary between the land of the plaintiff and defendants was 5 feet. The defendants are cultivating the land jointly. The defendants have demolished the common boundary mark in March, 1999 while ploughing their land. When plaintiff had obstructed them, they did not listen, therefore, plaintiff applied to Taluka Inspector of Land Records for fixing the boundaries. Accordingly, the land was measured on 16.03.1999. It was revealed that the defendants have encroached upon 3 Gunthas of land of plaintiff and Babasaheb. The Cadestral Surveyor has fixed the boundaries and had also affixed the boundary mark stones. After the measurement the plaintiff had requested the defendants to give possession of his half guntha of land out of 3 Gunthas of land, but they refused on 10.09.1999, therefore, the suit was filed.

4. The Defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement at Exh.16. The fact regarding partition of the land by Kashinath, the situation after the partition, sale transactions by Kashinath as well as others as narrated in the plaint have been admitted. They admit the ownership over the suit land but denied the fact of encroachment. They have denied that there was a common boundary of five feet width between their land and the land of plaintiff. It is stated by them that the land is not measured nor notices regarding the measurement were given to them. It is stated that since the date of partition, which had taken about 40 years ago, the situation is as it is.

5. Taking into consideration the said rival contentions, partie