JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - These two second appeals arise out of the suits under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against different defendants with pleadings that one encroachment upon 1 bigha land of the plaintiff's plot towards south and the other was in unauthorised possession on 5 biswas land of the plaintiffs plot towards north. The two suits were dismissed by both the courts below. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record and the judgments which are available. 3. Normally, such cases require demarcation under section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act but since the possession by encroachment was alleged to be of longer period and the land was supposed to be identifiable suits under section 209 of the Act were maintained. It required enquiry by commissioners to specify and find the area under occupation of the defendants and even the SDO inspected and got measurements made it was found that the area of plot no. 401 of the plaintiff was not less, rather the area of the defendants was less that recorded. It was also found that the plaintiffs plot had net remained in its original shape as in last settlement. It is obvious that no area could be identified as undoubtedly in possession of the defendants. This is a finding of fact by the two courts below and cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. 4. There is another important aspect in these cases. The plaintiff did not file any proof from his side showing the encroachment and wanted the court to investigate and prepare a claim for him that the defendants had encroached so much land belonging to the plaintiff. The court is not required to investigate and prepare such claims for the plaintiff. Commission can be issued only to check the existing proof, detailed site plan with measurements, existing boundaries, trees, or the situation on spot about which parties differ, but basic investigation to find out if the plaintiffs land has been encroached upon by anyone and to what extent has to be done by the plaintiff before he filed the suit. 5. If such uncertainty lies, the best and appropriate course is to apply for demarcation under section 41 of the U.P.L.R. Act. 5. If such uncertainty lies, the best and appropriate course is to apply for demarcation under section 41 of the U.P.L.R. Act. It is wrong to impose on the court infructuous investigation work without basis as was done in these cases. The court should not have issued commission unless the plaintiff had filed detailed site plan with measurements based on private survey establishing definite land under defendant's occupation, with definite area and shape. 6. I find these two appeals to be without force and dismiss them under Older XU Rule 11 CPC. 7. This judgment shall govern second appeal nos. 160 and 161 of 1981-82 Muzaffarnagar.