- (1.)There was a judgment passed by the District Court, Buldhana thereby reversing the judgment of dismissal of the suit on one hand and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on the other hand. There was a direction to measure entire area of survey no. 22 ( of which the encroached portion forms a part). There was a liberty granted to the parties to amend the pleadings on the basis of report of surveyor. The correctness of the said order is challenged before us at the instance of original defendant.
PLEADINGS

(2.)There was a suit for removal of encroachment and possession. In order to prove the ownership, the plaintiff relied upon the area shown in the 7/12 extract. The plaintiff took the assistance of surveyor from the office of T.I.L.R. Whereas the defendant denied the theory of encroachment. Apart from the denial the defendant went to the extent of explaining as to how the plaintiff got area excess to the area as per the two sale-deeds. He went to the extent of pleading that the excess area was distributed during the consolidation proceeding. At the same time defendant pleaded that distribution was wrong.
FINDINGS

(3.)After evidence adduced by both the sides, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. It was mainly for two reasons. One is plaintiff could not prove the ownership of a land shown on 7/12 extract. It was also for the reason that defendant's grievance about the distribution during consolidation appears to be probable and to clear the doubt the plaintiff ought to have examined any Consolidation Officer.
FIRST APPEAL