JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331 of U.P. Act I of 1951 against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-80 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Agra Division. Agra. In appeal no. 206 of 1978-79. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Ninnu and Dharamjit, deceased (whose heir is Ninnu), filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of plot no. 136/2 (area 1-19 acres), for eviction of Ram Sahay and others, defendants, and for delivery of possession. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. After evaluating the evidence the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred against that order before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the land was not identifiable on the spot and that the area of plot no. 136 was recorded as 2-80 acres, whereas the instant suit was filed for an area of 1-19 acres. He also was of the view that the plaintiffs had admitted that plot no. 136 was one on the spot and that the case regarding correction of map was pending before the Additional Collector. The learned Additional Commissioner was also of the view that the plaintiff-appellants had not given the boundaries of the land in suit and even if a decree is passed, the land could not be demarcated on the spot. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the boundaries are not given in the plaint, a decree could be passed and after passing of the decree the land could be demarcated, relying on 1974 R.D. P. 62 and 1970 R.D. 123. Placing reliance on 1974 R.D. 62, he says that even if any proceedings are pending for demarcation of land before the trial court, a suit under Section 209 was maintainable and could be filed. Relying on a decision reported in 1970 R.D. 123 the learned counsel says that shares of the parties were determinable and hence the instant suit maintainable. 5. Relying on a decision reported in 1970 R.D. 123 the learned counsel says that shares of the parties were determinable and hence the instant suit maintainable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the decision reported in 1970 R.D. 123, there was a sale deed executed for particular share of the parties and on that basis the suit under Sections 229-B/209 was filed which was maintainable. He further says that a suit only under Section 209 was not maintainable, and the facts of that case are not applicable to the instant proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since there was a specific allegation that the defendants respondents had occupied certain part of the land, hence the land was identifiable as observed in the decision reported in 1974 R.D. 62. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in that case there was a lease and the area covered by the lease was identifiable, whereas in the instant case no such specific case was made in the plaint that respondents had occupied certain part of land. 7. I find that the issue to be decided in the case is whether the defendant-respondents have occupied the land belonging to the plaintiff. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of the courts below that the land was not identifiable as the boundary was not given. This aspect of the matter could have been verified by the spot inspection and measurements. Certainly a suit under Section 209 was maintainable, but if there was any dispute regarding are being encroached upon by the defendants, that area should be got determined by the plaintiff through a survey to the land. If the area is found in the occupation of the defendant-respondents, the suit of the plaintiffs will certainly succeed, with this observation, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the courts below are set aside, and the matter is sent back to the trial court for getting the area demarcated and thereafter to decide this particular issue. The matter has now become very old and it should be decided within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.