JUDGMENT A.P. BHANGALE, J. 1. Heard submissions at the bar advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order passed by the Principal District Judge, Amravati, dated 5.3.2014 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008 whereby after setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 1998 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati on 24.10.2007, the learned 1st Appellate Judge dismissed the suit for possession and removal of encroachment and granted perpetual and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to stop flowing of rain water falling on terrace of the plaintiff and to divert the rain water falling from the outlets mentioned as D1 to D3 away from the approach way. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited my attention to the fact that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in respect of the plot admeasuring 3200 sq. ft. bearing plot No. 17, Sheet No. 48 at mouza Tarkheda, pragane Badnera, Tq. and District Amravati known as Khaparde Garden area. The plot was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 16.1.1995 vide Index No. 189 of Sub-Registrar, Amravati, City-2 with a house built thereon and including approach road admeasuring about 61 ft. long x 10 ft. width. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there was a map in respect of suit property attached to the sale deed itself which was registered sale deed. The said plot is bounded on eastern side by plot of Dr. Dakre, on western side by Savatri Bhawan Chawl, on northern side by the plot of defendant and on the southern side by the plot of Dr. Mudliar and Dr. Deshmukh. Thus, despite full description of the suit plot and map, it is case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached upon her land to the extent of 2 ft. x 8 ft. and this was shown in the map annexed with the plaint. Continuous encroachment was alleged on the part of the defendant. It was increased to the extent of 94.25 sq. ft. x 8 ft. and this was shown in the map annexed with the plaint. Continuous encroachment was alleged on the part of the defendant. It was increased to the extent of 94.25 sq. ft. The defendant had also constructed drain affixing pipeline on the terrace and leaving its outlets open in such a way that rain water from the terrace of the defendant was falling on the plot of the plaintiff, for which Municipal Corporation had also issued notice to the defendant calling upon her to remove unauthorised construction, which notice was challenged by her in Regular Civil Suit No. 408 of 1997. But that suit was dismissed. The defendant had also filed one Civil Suit No. 6 of 1996 against the plaintiff in collusion with residents of Savatri Bhavan building. That suit was also dismissed. 4. The grievance of the plaintiff about encroachment made by the defendant since 6.1.1996 continued. Therefore, the plaintiff had sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from diverting flow of the rain water falling on the house. According to the defendant, Judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 408 of 1997 has no concern with the dispute in question. She had preferred appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2004 against dismissal of the suit. The defendant had denied the alleged encroachment made by her. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish fact of encroachment made by the defendant as shown in the plaint map EFG/ELM. The trial Court also decided the issue against the plaintiff about alleged illegal construction made by the defendant and the pipeline constructed keeping open outlet and allowed accumulation of water in her land. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, he had made an application for appointment of competent Surveyor so as to find the extent of encroachment made by the defendant after measurement of the suit property in presence of parties. However, that application was rejected by the trial Court, though it was a boundary dispute in respect of the suit property and the encroachment was alleged on the part of the defendant. The entire case of the plaintiff was in respect of alleged encroachment made by the defendant. It is also submitted that the plaintiff had examined a witness who carried out measurement privately on behalf of the plaintiff and also prepared map in respect of the suit property. The entire case of the plaintiff was in respect of alleged encroachment made by the defendant. It is also submitted that the plaintiff had examined a witness who carried out measurement privately on behalf of the plaintiff and also prepared map in respect of the suit property. However, the learned trial Judge giving negative finding on the issues framed in respect of boundary dispute was pleased to dismiss the suit. The appellate Court also did not consider that in such a case of boundary dispute measurement plan drawn in presence of disputed parties could have been drawn by competent Surveyor such as Taluka Inspector of Land Records or District Inspector of Land Records. Such survey report pursuant to measurement of the suit property can certainly assist the trial Court or the first Appellate Court as final Court of facts to effectively and completely decide the real controversy between the parties. 5. My attention is invited to the ruling by this Court in the case of Suleman Khan and Others vs. Bhagirathibai and Another, 2014 (4) Mh. L.J. 250. This Court has observed in para 9 of the ruling as follows:- “9. In cases to determine encroachment, it is always desirable to have disputed suit property measured by competent surveyor to find out encroachment and its extent. Oral evidence cannot prove such contentious issue conclusively. In a suit where parties are disputing boundaries of property and one of the parties alleges encroachment made by another party to the suit inside suit property. In such case the plaint map as evidence in respect thereof is vital document for to decide real controversy between the parties finally. 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 such case the plaint map as evidence in respect thereof is vital document for to decide real controversy between the parties finally. 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. The Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court which are Court of Facts, are duty bound to ascertain that a map is drawn to the appropriate scale by competent Government official from the office of TILR or DILR, as the case may be, so that measurement of suit property is carried out in presence of the parties after due notice to them or even if they are absent, so as to ensure that the suit property is properly measured, boundaries are fixed and boundary dispute is finally settled by producing map in the Court by the plan maker who can prove its genuineness by deposing in support of such plan/map, if it is so necessary in the absence of admission for exhibiting the map. The Trial Court can certainly raise presumption of accuracy and genuineness of such map in view of Section 83 of the Evidence Act if map is drawn by competent authority. (Ram Kishore Sen & Others vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1966 SC 644 ) When such vital document is duly produced, proved and established, necessary detailed decree can be followed if there is any encroachment on the suit property. As held by this Court in Vijay Shende’s case (supra), in such cases, fact of encroachment may be proved partly by oral evidence although the extent of encroachment cannot be proved in absence of public records without following due procedure emerging from Section 36 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act. In view of this recent judicial precedent referred to above, in the larger interest of justice, when it appears that the trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court failed to follow proper procedure in this regard to ascertain the boundaries of the suit property. I must allow this appeal by setting aside impugned judgments and orders with direction to the trial Court concerned to consider appointment of Court commissioner; who shall be competent official from the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records and District Inspector of Land Records, as the case may be. I must allow this appeal by setting aside impugned judgments and orders with direction to the trial Court concerned to consider appointment of Court commissioner; who shall be competent official from the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records and District Inspector of Land Records, as the case may be. The Court Commissioner, if required, shall secure copies of necessary public record relating to Gat/Survey number, subject matter of dispute for to settle boundaries of the suit property by carrying out measurement after due notice to the parties to the suit and also issuing notice to adjacent owners/possessors to the suit property. He shall submit his written report to the trial Court together with detailed map. Learned trial Court after considering such written report may allow the parties to lead additional evidence if it deems it fit and shall pass order according to law. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 28th April 2014. It is desirable that the trial Judge shall endeavour to get an agreed map on record and in the absence of such agreed map/plan can depend upon evidence obtained through the Court Commissioner as indicated above.” 6. It cannot be disputed that, in case of boundary disputes, the Court can be assisted effectively and properly by the competent Surveyor who may draw a measurement plan in presence of parties to the suit so that extent of encroachment, if any, is brought to the notice of the Court. The encroacher is bound to remove such encroachment and pay for damages if claimed in respect of such encroachment made for the duration which the Court of fact may find upon evidence led by the parties. It is always desirable that the suits involving boundary dispute are decided on the basis of measurement plan or map drawn to the scale by the competent Government Official deputed from the Office of T.I.L.R. and D.I.L.R. as the case may be. The Court can insist upon such measurement plan drawn expeditiously by the competent Surveyor from the public Office. The plan maker may be examined if so required to prove genuineness of the plan if parties do not agree upon the same for exhibiting thereof. Otherwise also, the trial Court can certainly raise presumption as to accuracy and genuineness of such map in view of Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plan maker may be examined if so required to prove genuineness of the plan if parties do not agree upon the same for exhibiting thereof. Otherwise also, the trial Court can certainly raise presumption as to accuracy and genuineness of such map in view of Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such document can surely help the cause of ending the dispute so that the suit can be heard and disposed finally; expeditiously and as early as possible in the larger interest of justice on the basis of measurement map plan drawn to the scale by the competent Government Official. That being so, the impugned Judgments and Orders are set aside. The proceedings are remitted back to the trial Court. The learned trial Judge concerned shall appoint competent Government Official as Court Commissioner or may call upon the D.I.L.R. or T.I.L.R. as the case may be to depute a competent person from Government Office to draw measurement plan in the appropriate scale so that encroachment, if any, as alleged is detected and is brought to the notice of the trial Court and consequent just and proper order according to law be passed so as to solve boundary dispute finally and effectively. That being so, the parties to appear before the trial Court on 30.10.2015. The learned trial Judge to hear the parties and pass appropriate order for getting measurement map drawn to the scale in respect of the suit property on record through the competent Government Official and thereafter hear the parties and record additional evidence, if any, adduced by the parties. The learned trial Court shall decide the suit afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the rulings cited. Needless to state that the trial Court shall consider all evidence and admissible documents produced on record in accordance with law. The Second Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.