The court emphasized the importance of proper demarcation in property disputes and held that the demarcation report prepared by the demarcating officer was valid and admissible as evidence.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

This appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby it allowed the appeal preferred before it by the plaintiff who stood aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court whereunder the latter dismissed his suit.

2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that plaintiff had claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction or changing the nature of the land comprised in Khata No. 286 min, Khatoni No. 428 min, khasra No. 668, as described in jamabandi for the year 1992-93 situated in Tika Chowki Kankari, Mouza Mehlta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur or for taking forcible possession of the suit land or any part thereof and in case the defendants succeed in raising any construction over the suit land or any part thereof during the pendency of the suit in that event a decree for possession by way of demolition was claimed. The said reliefs had been claimed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff is a co-owner in joint possession of the suit land whereas the defendants are stranger to it.

3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendants on the ground that the suit is hit by doctrine of lis-pendense, maintainability and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendants not disputed the ownership of plaintiff over the suit land and pleaded that there is no boundary wall between the suit land and adjoining land comprising of Khasra No. 666 owned and possessed by the defendants and the said wall had been constructed by them as per demarcation given by local commissioner, hence neither the defendants intended to encroach nor encroached upon the suit land and averred that the demarcation dated 15.7.1997 has become final.

4. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement contrary to the plaint were refuted.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession by way of demolition, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is hit by doctrine of lispendense? OPD.

4. Whether the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not properly verified, as alleged? OPD.

7. Relief.

6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff whereas the learned First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal preferred before it by the plaintiff.

7. Now the defendants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 1.06.2007, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the demarcation report Ext.PW-5/A is contrary to the prescribed procedure laid down for demarcation of the land by the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, the same was required to be rejected?

2. Whether the demarcation report Ext.PW-5/A have not been carried out with the aid of Mussavi and since three permanent points were not fixed, nor adjoining area were measured therefore no reliance could be placed upon the report Ext.PW-5/A and Tatima Shajra Ext.PW-5/B?

3. Whether in view of the contents of the demarcation report Ext.PW-5/A whereby the parties are shown to have compromised the dispute, therefore, the suit for injunction and mandatory injunction could not be entered?

Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3

8. The learned counsel appearing fo