at relevant time. However when the Trial Court’s decree was challenged by the Appellant before District Judge, perusal of the Appeal memo would indicate that, the issue of non-conduct of measurement of Defendant’s land bearing City Survey No.1391 and 1343 was not even pleaded in the Appeal memo. Thus, Defendant did not urge before the First Appellate Court that measurement of land bearing City Survey No.1391 and 1393 was of vital importance for drawl of inference of encroachment. Now at the stage of Second Appeal, the said objection is sought to be raised when the First Appellate Court did not have the benefit of considering the same. In my view, on account of failure on the part of Appellant to raise the issue of nonconduct of measurement of land bearing Survey No.1391 and 1393 before the First Trial Court, the Appellants are precluded from raising the same in the present Appeal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records has measured Plaintiff’s property bearing Survey No.1481 and has fixed boundaries thereof. While fixing the boundaries, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records has observed that some portion of land bearing Survey No.1481 is actually in possession of Defendant. Based on the said map prepared by the Deputy Superintend of Land Records, Trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit. 5. Mr. Gite’s reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Rambhau Daulatrao Mule (supra) would not cut any ice. In that case, the measurement map prepared by Cadastral Surveyor prior to filing of the suit was relied on. No notice of conduct of survey was given to the Defendants. Apparently joint measurement was not carried out. These are the factors why this Court proceeded to reject the measurement conducted by the Cadastral Surveyer and directed that the Surveyer from the office of T.I.L.R. to be appointed for
