7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that no .

encroachment was made by the defendant and the suit for possession was barred by the agreement dated 03.08.2005 (Ex.D1). On the other hand, the respondents argued that the demarcation report dated 23.02.2010 confirmed the encroachment of 2 Marlas in Khasra No. 1o418/1, justifying the decree in their favour.

8. The record reveals four demarcation reports. The first (Ex.DW2/A, dated 19.02.20u04) pertains to Khasra Nos. 1420 and 1421, not the suit land (Khasra No. 1418), and was conducted without the plaintiffs' participation, rendering it unreliable. The second (Ex.DW5/A, dated 23.12.2007) relates to Khasra Nos. 1419 and 1427 and similarly does not bind the plaintiffs, as they were not parties to it. The third (Ex.PW2/A, dated 23.02.2010), relied upon by the plaintiffs, allegedly showed encroachment by the defendant. However, PW2, the Kanungo who conducted the demarcation, admitted in cross- examination that permanent points were not properly recorded, adjoining Khasra numbers were not measured, and Financial Commissioner’s instructions w