Short Note : 1. There was a paar or embankment in between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant removed the paar and put up a new paar in 1965 and in this process, encroached upon the aforesaid area of the plaintiff's land. The defendant's case was that about twenty years back the lands belonging to the plaintiff and defendant were tractorised and in that process the old paar was got removed and a new paar was constructed by the Government. The defendant alleged that the new paar was at the same place where the old one existed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in any case the defendant being in possession for the last twenty years of the disputed area, had perfected his title by adverse possession. Held : The question whether the Commissioner's report should be accepted or not does not raise any question of law. The first appellate Court considered the report of the Commissioner and it has given reasons for not accepting the report. The Court believed the evidence produced by the defendant that the paar, as now exists, was constructed by the Government twenty years back when the lands of the parties were tractorised. There is no error of Jaw in this finding. The burden of proof, that the defendant was in possession of the plaintiff's land, was on the plaintiff. The map of the plaintiff shows that the area which he claims is a thin strip of lard between the two fields. If this strip of land, as held by the first appellate Court, is in possession of the defendant for the last twenty years after the Government constructed a new paar, I do not think that the plaintiff can make any grievance now. Appeal dismissed.