This civil 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree passed by the courts-below. 2. The apellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injuction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession over a piece of land measuring two marlas bearing survey No. 229 Abadi-Deh situated at Dangerpora Razwan Tehsil Budgam fully described in the body of the plaint. Alongwith the suit, the appellant annexed a sketch-map prepared by the patwari on 2nd September, 1981 to prove the fact of his possession over the land. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent raised some construction over the disputed land. The suit was amended to seek relief of Mandatory Injuction. However, no issue was framed to that effect. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit on 17th October, 1992 hoding that the appellant is not found in possession of land in dispute. Appeal was preferred against the judgement and decree of the learned Sub-Judge whicgh came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Budgam vide judgement dated 29th June, 1996. 3. This appeal has been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Kan-damad in possession of piece of Abadi Deh land is entitled to seek the relief of injuction and protection of his right(s) thereto? 2. Whether without framing the issue(s) after amendment of suit from perpetual to mandatory injuction, the suit could have been decided in absence of raising the necessary issues even when a party may be adversely or prejudicially affected thereby? 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant could not establish his possession over the Abadi-Deh land. To prove his possession, he relied upon the oral evidence and the sketchmap prepared by the Patwari which he has annexed with the suit. The sketch-map reveals that the Patwari has recorded therein that "on this piece of land Ghulam Mohammad Wani claims his possession and Qadir son of Aziz claims his possession" which means both the parties, claims their possession over the suit land. There is no evidence with regard to possession of the appellant over the disputed piece of land. Patwari has not been examined to prove the contents of the sketch-map. Even if it is proved, it speaks of possession of both the parties. Both the parties have led evidence claiming their possession. There is no evidence with regard to possession of the appellant over the disputed piece of land. Patwari has not been examined to prove the contents of the sketch-map. Even if it is proved, it speaks of possession of both the parties. Both the parties have led evidence claiming their possession. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove his possession which he failed. The appellant, therefore, could not make out that he is in exclusive possession of Abadi-Deh land, the subject matter of dispute. 5. So far as framing of the issue after the amendment of the suit for relief of mandatory injuction is concerned, though the issue ought to have been framed by the trial court, yet it is to be seen that under such circumstances where the plaintiff fails to establish his possession over the suit land, is it still necessary to frame such an issue for trial. What emerges at this stage is that the appellant has not been in position to establish his possession over the disputed piece of land of Abadi-deh. Thus there is no need to frame any such issue for the single reason that the relief of mandatory injuction cannot be granted to the appellant having failed to prove his possession over the land. 6. For the abovesaid reasons, the appellant could not make out that substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. There is no substance in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.