JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 14, 1969 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated May 30, 1968 passed by the learned trial court in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. None has appeared for the respondents. 3. The only point argued before me is that the land in suit was not identifiable and the burden to prove this was wrongly placed on the defendant. The other grounds in the memo have little substances as the learned first appellate court has found. The first appellate court has discussed the matter of res-judicata and found it to hold good in the instant case. The earlier injunction suit number 308 of 1958 being a different proceeding is not material, what is material is that the matter was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. The injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the same plot number 214. As regards the entries or possession, it is incorrect to say that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence. The finding of Sirdari in favour of the plaintiffs was there and it was only on account of incorrect entry in favour of the defendant that need of correction arose and ultimately a suit for declaration had to be filed. The injunction suit had been decreed on September 16, 1965 in favour of the plaintiffs and was upheld in appeal. The two courts below, therefore, have concurrently found the plaintiff to be Sirdars on a sound basis. The suit was Primarily under Section 229-B and unless the court found the defendants to be in possession, the additional relief of recovery of possession was not required, nor was actually granted by the trial court. So the only question remains to be considered is about identifiability of the land in suit. 4. It appears that the appellant did not press this point in the first appeal. Otherwise too, this has been decided under issue number 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. So the only question remains to be considered is about identifiability of the land in suit. 4. It appears that the appellant did not press this point in the first appeal. Otherwise too, this has been decided under issue number 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. The finding of the trial court is that this being a full plot having distinct plot number and area, was quite identifiable and was not joint with any plots as pleaded either by the plaintiffs or the defendant. The plaintiffs had claimed that plot number 212 was joint with their plot numbers 213 and 214. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the plot number 212 was joint with their plot numbers 210 and 211. Mere respective oral evidence were not sufficient to decide that the plot was joint with any other plots. So to establish that the plot was joint with the defendants plots, it was necessary for them to get a commission issued for local inspection and preparation of the site plan, to confirm their contention. Even if the plot is joint with plot numbers 213 and 214, no difficulty is caused to the plaintiffs since his relief is necessarily of declaration alone and correction in village papers accordingly. The suit would fail only when it was established that plot number 213 was joint with numbers 208, 210 and 211 and so it was rightly the burden of the defendants to get this proved by getting a commission issued and by some local inspection report. 5. I agree with the trial court's observation that the plot number 212 being a full plot and not a mere part of a plot (Minjumla number) and being duly shown in village papers and Shazra with area and boundary, it was found properly identifiable. The difficulty of identifiability also does not arise if it is joint with the plaintiff's plots, since they claim their own possession. The difficulty would arise only when the defendants are able to show that it is not only joint with numbers 208, 210 and 211 but that its area and shape have also been changed and disfigured so as to make it non-identifiable. The difficulty would arise only when the defendants are able to show that it is not only joint with numbers 208, 210 and 211 but that its area and shape have also been changed and disfigured so as to make it non-identifiable. If the plots admittedly retain their area and shape, anyone plot being joint with other plots will not make it unidentifiable unless the other joint plots cover a major part of the boundaries of the plot in question. Since prima facie plot remained fully identifiable, the trial court was right in placing the burden on the defendants to prove otherwise. The defendants failed to prove their stand and the issue was rightly decided. 6. In consequence, I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.