JUDGMENT In this appeal, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the dispute is very narrow. This dispute is with regard to the location of the land which was being claimed by the plaintiff/respondents. According to the plaintiff, they got some land on patta. Its measurements have been given in the plaint. It has been stated that one piece of land on one side is 50' and on the other it is 20'. With regard to other piece of land, it is 45' on one side and 49' on the other. The exact area has not been given because this is not a rectangular in shape. The piece of land is in slant. Precisely for this reason the plaint states that the site plan is being enclosed. The Court below with a view to determine as to where the land is located appointed a Naib Tahsildar to demarcate the land. This was done. On 4.10.1971. Objections were taken to this report. The main objection was that the measurements were not properly taken. Thereafter, the Naib Tahsildar went to the spot for the second time. He submitted second report along with a map. This report was given on 26th of March, 1972. This is Ex. P/4. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on the basis of the report. Ex. P-4 the Court below came to the conclusion that the claim in the plaint merited acceptance. It accordingly decreed the same. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was reversed on appeal. This is defendants second appeal. The only objection which has now been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the report does not indicate as to where the land is situated. According to him it is not clear whether the land regarding which claim has been made is in fact part of S. No. 426/1 or part of S. No. 426/4. It is worthwhile to mention that opportunity was given to the appellants for filing objection, but no objections were filed. This fact is duly mentioned in the order-sheet of the trial Court. This is dated 26th of April, 1972. In this view of the matter, no valid objection can be raised to the second report Ex. P-4, submitted by the Naib Tahsildar. This fact is duly mentioned in the order-sheet of the trial Court. This is dated 26th of April, 1972. In this view of the matter, no valid objection can be raised to the second report Ex. P-4, submitted by the Naib Tahsildar. Merely because when the Naib Tahsildar appeared in the witness-box he could not state as to where the land is situated is of no consequence. This is because he did state in his statement that he has duly recorded this fact in his report. This fact was duly taken note of by the Court below. It be further seen that in the map Ex. P/3. which is part of report the Naib Tahsildar had clearly indicated the Survey Numbers. The disputed land has been shown in red hatches. It has been shown to be part of S. No. 426/4. When the report of the Naib Tahsildar is read along with the plaint, there is no manner of doubt that there is clear identification of land which was being claimed by the plaintiff and regarding which officer had submitted his report. As such, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Court below. This appeal is without merit and is dismissed.