Short Note : 1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the allegation on the part of the respondent-plaintiff that the appellants-defendants have encroached upon a portion of khasra No. 110/6 which admittedly belonged to him. This khasra is on the border of two villages, namely Nawapara and Kachhar. Adjacent to this khasra number is the land of the appellants-defendants bearing khasra No. 353 located in village Kachhar. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellants-defendants have made an encroachment on his khasra No. 110/6, on an area 0.08 acre by construction of a kotha thereupon. Hence the present suit by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the same and mesne profits. Held : The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants was that the lower appellate Court failed to take note that no proceedings under section 126 or 127 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 were taken by the respondent-plaintiff as the matter related to a boundary dispute and that not having gone through, the evidence of Sheikh Shakur Mohammad, Revenue Inspector (P.W.4) and Bhagwat Prasad, Patwari (P.W.5) was not trustworthy when they stated that they measured khasra No. 110/6 and found an encroachment of 0.08 acre as alleged by the respondent-plaintiff. In my opinion, the contention has no merit. The question whether proceedings under section 126 or 127 of the Code were taken or not would not be a material factor for upsetting the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court on the appreciation of the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses. It was not the case of the appellants-defendants that the Civil Court could not go into the question of encroachment of the land which are located on the border of two villages unless proceedings under section 126 or 127 of the Code are resorted to. But that point was not taken either before the lower appellate Court or in the memo of appeal in this Court and as such I think that no point of this nature arises for consideration in this appeal. In any case, even otherwise a bare reading of section 126 makes it clear that the proceedings under that section are of summary nature and aggrieved party's right to establish his title in the Civil Court is not barred. Section 127 deals with the demarcation and maintenance of boundary lines. In any case, even otherwise a bare reading of section 126 makes it clear that the proceedings under that section are of summary nature and aggrieved party's right to establish his title in the Civil Court is not barred. Section 127 deals with the demarcation and maintenance of boundary lines. Thus, both the sections have no application so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter of disputes regarding encroachment by one party against the other even though their fields may be located on the boundary of two villages as in the present case. Here there was no dispute with regard to the boundary of the village. Khasra numbers of each party had specified area and as such the point involved for consideration was whether any portion of respondent plaintiff's Khasra No. 110/6 had been encroached upon by the appellants-defendants Appeal dismissed.