JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.(Oral): This second appeal is by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the court of Shri G.R. Sharma. the then Additional District Judge, Manti division at Mandi, H.P., dated 11.2,1991 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decried. Earlier, the suit had been dismissed by the Court of Shri M.K. Bansal, Sub-Judge, 1st Class (II), Mandi by his judgment and decree dated 13.6.1990. 2. The facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the pleadings that the land contained in Khasra No.316/2 is owned and possessed by them and the defendants have no title or interest on the same but they started interfering over it to the extent of one Biswa only. It has further been pleaded (hat the defendants tried to encroach upon a portion of the suit land as they, tried to dig foundation for the construction of a house thereon. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the defendants did not desist from their said Illegal act though being requested by the next friend of the plaintiffs as they are minors. 3. In the written statement the defendants-appellants took up the plea . that they did not raise any construction on any portion of the land in dispute, but have so done on their own land. They did not encroach upon or interfere on the land of the plaintiffs. The foundation if their house was not on any portion of the suit land or on any land owned by the plaintiffs. The Tatima relied upon by the plaintiffs-respondents was stated to be against the factual position and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. . 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed he for Moving issues: (i) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs? OP D. (ii) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (iii)Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by there act and conduct to file the present suit ? QPD (iv)Whether the defendants have encroached portion of Khasra No.316/2/1, measuring 0-1-0 Bighas by digging the foundation for construction of the house ? OPP. (v) Relief. 5. Issues No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the defendant-appellants holding that they had not encroached upon the suit land by digging foundation for their house. QPD (iv)Whether the defendants have encroached portion of Khasra No.316/2/1, measuring 0-1-0 Bighas by digging the foundation for construction of the house ? OPP. (v) Relief. 5. Issues No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the defendant-appellants holding that they had not encroached upon the suit land by digging foundation for their house. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. On the above findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the- parties and I have examined the record. 7. On going through the impugned judgment, 1 find, that the same is based on appreciation of evidence, In the circumstances of the case because of the settled law that it is within the jurisdiction and domain .of the Civil Courts; both trial as well as the appellate, to appreciate the evidence and suit findings thereon, even an erroneous finding of fact cannot be interfered with, in second appeal unless a substantial question of law is involved. In the present case, no such defect exists in the impugned judgment. 8. In fairness to Shri B.K. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, he has firstly submitted that since admittedly, as per the case of the plaintiffs- respondents the appellants-defendants have encroached upon one Biswa of the land, out of Khasra No.316/2, the suit for injunction simplicities was not maintainable and they had to sue for possession of the alleged dispute portion. 9. Against this argument, Shri B.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents has invited my attention to para No.8(b) of the plaint which is the relief portion. The same runs as follows :- "In case, the defendants succeed in taking forcible possession and raising structure etc , forcibly over the suit land during pungency of the suit, then a decree for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by directing them to restore the original position of the land after demolishing the said such structures etc," 10. In rejoinder, Shri B.K. Malhotra has submitted that there is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pungency of the suit or the appeal. 11. I have carefully considered the respective contentions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. In rejoinder, Shri B.K. Malhotra has submitted that there is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pungency of the suit or the appeal. 11. I have carefully considered the respective contentions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants Shri B.K. Malhotra on the ground that it is manifest from the judgment i.e. impugned judgment that no such objection was taken before him. Moreover, in view of para No.8(b) of the plaint which is the relief clause, there is no defect in the framing of the suit and in the circumstances of the case as borne out from the evidence on record, the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable. 12. It has next been submitted by Shri B.K. Malhotra by referring the statement of Shri P.C. Katoch, the then Tehsildar, Mandi who appeared for both i.e. for the plaintiffs as PW-1 and for the defendants as DW-3 that he has taken contradictory stand in his depositions. While appearing as PW-1, he has stated that he had not demarcated Khasra No.316 which is the disputed land. In support of his submission, Shri B.K. Malhotra has cited a decided case of the Court i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Laxmi Nand and others (1992(2) Sim. L.C. 307) whereby it has been laid down in para No. 15 of the said judgment as to how the demarcation is to be done under the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, As per the submission of Shri Malhotra, the demarcation in the present case has not been done as per the ratio of the said judgment. 13. I have also carefully considered this argument of Shri B.K. Malhotra and I find no merit in its. Something could have been said on the point had the defendants—appellants filed their objections against the report of the Tehsildar, Mandi before the Courts below. According to Shri B.K. Malhotra, the Tehsildar was not appointed by the court as local commissioner, but was appointed by the Divisional Commissioner on the application of the plaintiffs -respondents for demarcating the disputed area. Something could have been said on the point had the defendants—appellants filed their objections against the report of the Tehsildar, Mandi before the Courts below. According to Shri B.K. Malhotra, the Tehsildar was not appointed by the court as local commissioner, but was appointed by the Divisional Commissioner on the application of the plaintiffs -respondents for demarcating the disputed area. Be that as it may, there is nothing in law to prevent the defendants-appellants to raise any objection in writing against the report of the Tehsildar and the demarcation done by him at the appropriate stage either before the trial Court or before the Lower Appellate Court. In view of the circumstances, the ruling, relied upon by Shri B.K. Malhotra is not applicable to the present case. 14. No other point has been urged. 15. For the reasons recorded above, there are not merits in this appeal. The same is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed