JUDGMENT A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Suit was originally filed by Sheikh Chand Isak Mohammed for permanent mandatory injunction. He died during the pendency of suit and suit was thereafter prosecuted by his legal representatives. Parties would be hereinafter referred to as per their original status. Plaintiff purchased vacant land at mouza Nagbhid (now, a tahsil place) in the year 1963 from one Bibi wife of Habibbhai Kachhi and he constructed residential house on part of plot and on an area admeasuring 11 & half x 37 feet. There is tin shed of plaintiff where he is running tea stall/pan shop for 30 years. Still there remains some vacant land as indicated by the plaintiff in plaint map. Plaintiff averred that defendant started laying columns to make construction on vacant land shown by letters A B C D in the plaint map on or about 31.12.1997. Inspite of police reports and complaints to Gram Panchayat, the Authorities did not do anything and defendant on the strength of his muscle power, continued with the construction work. Hence, plaintiff filed suit (being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1998) before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagbhid for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendant from making any construction on the said vacant land and for mandatory injunction directing defendant to demolish the construction made by him on the said land indicated by letters A B C D in the plaint map. 2. Defendant filed his Written Statement. He denied the boundaries shown by plaintiff and sketch in plaint map on the ground that it is misleading and not depicting true picture. According to defendant, when plaintiff objected to his construction on his own land, at the instance of plaintiff himself, defendant got his plot measured through District Inspector of Land Records in presence of parties and witnesses and it was revealed that the construction of defendant is on his own land and no encroachment on the land of plaintiff was found. He prayed for dismissal of suit. 3. Learned trial Court by its judgment dated 5th July 2004 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred appeal (being Regular Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2004). Learned 1st Appellate Judge, however, dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 18.9.2012. Hence, this appeal by the legal representatives of original plaintiff. 4. He prayed for dismissal of suit. 3. Learned trial Court by its judgment dated 5th July 2004 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred appeal (being Regular Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2004). Learned 1st Appellate Judge, however, dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 18.9.2012. Hence, this appeal by the legal representatives of original plaintiff. 4. Defendant in the map filed along with Written Statement (exhibit 83) claimed that his plot bears number 396 and he indicated disputed columns by letters E F. Plaintiff has no where given plot numbers (either in suit plaint or plaint map). However, during the course of his cross-examination, plaintiff deposed that his plot bore number 398. According to the defendant, it can be inferred that in between the two plots there is plot number 397. 5. This Court has held in (Kolhapuri Bandu Lakade Vs. Yallappa Chinappa Lakade & ore.)1, reported in 2011(3) Bom. C.R. 807 : 2011(3) Mh. L.J. 348; (Manikrao Rami Vs. Ashok Ambadas & anr.)2, reported in 2014(4) Bom. C.R. 852 : 2014(2) Mh. L.J. 841 and in (Sulemankhan & ors. Vs. Smt. Bhagirathibai & anr.) 3, Second Appeal No. 45 of 2013, decided on 2nd April 2014) has held the boundary dispute which is age old controversy has to be settled by an authentic map prepared in presence of parties through joint measurement. It has been further laid down that such joint measurement be carried out by an officer from TILR or DILR as the case may by consent of parties or in default by the Court with a view to decide real controversy between the parties to the suit. 6. The trial Court should have taken into consideration that it is always desirable to have disputed suit property measured by competent surveyor to find out encroachment and its extent and that, oral evidence cannot prove such contentious issue conclusively. This Court has time and again expressed opinion about the necessity of duly drawn measurement plan/map in any suit in which there is a boundary dispute. In view of the above, impugned judgments and orders are hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the trial Court. This Court has time and again expressed opinion about the necessity of duly drawn measurement plan/map in any suit in which there is a boundary dispute. In view of the above, impugned judgments and orders are hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the trial Court. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court and reproduced in paragraphs 8 and 9 above by asking the parties to place their respective maps describing the property fully and by appointing appropriate officer from the Office of TILR/DILR as Court commissioner who will do the exercise of joint measurement in presence of parties and submit map and report before the Court for its consideration. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 23.6.2014. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.