The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of valid and legal demarcation reports, the finality of certain reports, and the limitations on re-appreciation of evidence in a second appeal.

Kuldip Singh , Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 113/1993 confirming the judgment, decree dated 12.4.1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, in Civil Suit No.230/1987 RBT No. 357/1989.

2. The appellant was defendant and Kashmir Singh father of respondent was plaintiff in the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The facts, in brief, are that Kashmir Singh filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant from interfering, encroaching, taking forcible possession, selling, plucking mangoes, cutting and removing mango trees from the land comprised in Khasra No. 2868 measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas Village Oel, Tehsil Amb, District Una, on the basis of title and possession. It was pleaded that the appellant has no right, title and interest in the suit land.

3. The appellant contested the suit, he admitted the ownership and possession of Kashmir Singh on the suit land but pleaded that mango tree is on khasra No. 2869 and he is enjoying the fruits of said tree standing on khasra No.2869. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP. (2) Relief. The suit was decreed on 12.4.1993, Krishan Singh filed appeal against the decision dated 12.4.1993 which was dismissed on 30.9.1999 by the learned District Judge, hence this appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether on the proper construction of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record and the provisions of Specific Relief Act, the findings of the Courts below are vitiated? 2. Whether in a boundary dispute, a unilateral demarcation report not in accordance with the High Court Rules and orders and directions of the Financial Commissioner can be relied upon for the purpose of adjudication? 3. Whether the orders of the Settlement Officer during the process of Settlement regarding correction of Karu Kans and the area along with Akash, which had become final, can be ignored by the Court while giving a final decision regarding the boundary dispute and rights of parties? 4. Whether certified copies of the revenue record consisting of the orders of the Settlement Officer and the orders of correction of mutation and the Aksh are perse admissible in evidence and can be taken on record under the provisions of order 41 rule 27 C.P.C.?

4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the records. Mr Kuthiala has submitted that in the learned lower Appellate Court the appellant had filed an application dated 31.1.1994 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for additional evidence. The appellant had also filed another application dated 13.2.1998 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for additional evidence in the lower Appellate Court. The learned lower Appellate Court has considered the earlier application for additional evidence and has not at all considered the second application for additional evidence and, therefore, committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal without considering second application for additional evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that C.M.P. No.940 of 2003 filed by the appellant in the present appeal for additional evidence is based upon facts subsequent to the decision dated 30.9.1999. Therefore, he has submitted that application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. filed in the present appeal may be allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant has additionally submitted that the question involved in the present case is whether the mango tree is situate on khasra No. 2868 or on khasra No. 2869. It was for the plaintiff to prove the location of mango tree. The Courts below have erred in relying demarcation report Ex.P-4 and decreeing the suit which report according to lear