Short Note : The trial Court found that an encroachment by the defendant in plaintiffs' field to the extent of 0.46 acres alone had been proved; that the defendant's version of the stone embankment being made to demarcate the two fields after their purchase was correct; that embankment continues to exist as such; that the defendant’s possession over the area claimed by the plaintiff has been adverse for more than twelve years on account of which the suit is time barred. Consequently, the suit was dismissed Plaintiffs' first appeal to the District Court has also failed. However, the first appellate Court in addition to upholding the trial Court's finding on the question of limitation has also held that no encroachment over the plaintiffs' field has also been proved. Hence this further appeal by the plaintiffs. Held: The first question is with regard to the encroachment. The first appellate Court has given several reasons in paragraph 16 of its judgment to support its conclusion that the alleged encroachment has not been proved by the plaintiff. The first reason given is that the Commissioner (PW.5) Dhannalal appointed to make a local inspection made the measurements only with reference to two survey marks which could not be a satisfactory basis. It has also been said that the Commissioner did not even care to measure the total area in possession of the parties claiming as their field to find out whether there was any excess area in possession of the defendant. In my opinion, the first reason alone is sufficient to sustain this finding of the Court below In Second Appeal No. 435 of 1964 decided on 27-8-1964 (Biharilal Vs. Bindaprasad) it was held by Pardey, J., that for a satisfactory measurement to determine encroachment upon land, the proper thing to do is to fix the location of the disputed land with reference to three fixed survey marks. If this was not done, it was held that the plaintiff was to blame for not giving satisfactory proof of the encroachment. In my opinion, there is no ground to interfere with this conclusion of the first appellate Court, for this reason alone. Ordinarily, this conclusion alone is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. If this was not done, it was held that the plaintiff was to blame for not giving satisfactory proof of the encroachment. In my opinion, there is no ground to interfere with this conclusion of the first appellate Court, for this reason alone. Ordinarily, this conclusion alone is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. It has also been found as a fact by the trial Court which finding is affirmed by the first appellate Court that the embankment made to demarcate the boundary between there two fields soon after their purchase well beyond twelve years prior to the suit, continues to exist and the defendant's possession is only in accordance with that. This fact, apart from negativing the plaintiffs' allegation of encroachment, also results in rendering the suit time barred as found by both the Courts below. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that there could be no adverse possession without the requisite intention. In my opinion, that question does not arise on the rival contentions in the present case. It is not the plaintiffs case that it was as a result of a mutual mistake of fact committed by the parties that the defendant had been in possession of a portion of the plaintiffs' land and that mistake had been discovered only recently. There is no room for such an argument on the pleadings in the present case. On the finding of fact reached that the defendant was in possession of the suit land ever since the two fields were purchased in the above manner at an auction more than twelve years prior to the suit, the plaintiffs' case fails on merits as well on the ground of limitation. S.A. No. 435 of 1964 decided on 21-8-1964 relied on. Appeal dismissed.