JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is second appeal by legal representatives of Tarsem Singh original defendant since deceased. 2. Suit was filed by respondents/plaintiffs Shiv Kumar etc. against Tarsem Singh defendant alleging that plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas comprised of khasra no. 90/2. However, some time prior to filing of the suit, defendant started raising construction on his adjoining land and also raised some construction in suit land of khasra no. 90/2 belonging to the plaintiffs. On demarcation, the defendant was found in possession of 12 marlas out of the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. On request, the defendant failed to vacate the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove his illegal construction from the said 12 marlas land and to hand over vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. Injunction restraining the defendant from raising any further construction in the suit land and from interfering in possession of plaintiffs thereon was also prayed. 3. The defendant alleged that he has raised construction on his own land. He has not encroached upon any land of the plaintiffs. Some other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. However, first appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of encroached 12 marlas land out of khasra no. 90/2 as depicted in the demarcation report. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant have filed this second appeal. 5. During pendency of this appeal, on application moved by respondents/plaintiffs, this Court vide order dated 5.7.2011 appointed Naib Tehsildar, Barwala as Local Commissioner to demarcate land of khasra no. 90/1 belonging to defendant and land of khasra no. 90/2 claimed by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Local Commissioner made demarcation and has submitted demarcation report that legal representatives of the defendant have encroached upon 12 marlas area of suit land comprised of khasra no. 90/2 as depicted in site plan annexed with the demarcation report. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Accordingly, the Local Commissioner made demarcation and has submitted demarcation report that legal representatives of the defendant have encroached upon 12 marlas area of suit land comprised of khasra no. 90/2 as depicted in site plan annexed with the demarcation report. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. In view of aforesaid demarcation report submitted by Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, against which no objections have been preferred by either party, it becomes crystal clear that appellants herein have encroached upon 12 marlas land belonging to the plaintiffs out of khasra no. 90/2. 8. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Local Commissioner did not fix pucca points for making demarcation. However, Local Commissioner has mentioned various khasra numbers from where measurement was started for making demarcation. Appellants have not filed any objection against the report of the Local Commissioner nor examined the Local Commissioner to depict that the report suffers from any infirmity. So, the report cannot be brushed aside. In view of this report, decree passed by the lower appellate court has to be maintained because appellants have encroached upon 12 marlas land of the plaintiffs. 9. Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the appellants contended that appellants as well as respondents are co-sharers in the entire land of khasra no. 90 which has not yet been partitioned. The contention is completely meritless and frivolous. The contention is beyond pleadings and is not substantiated by any evidence on record. On the contrary, appellants’ predecessor Tarsem Singh defendant purchased specific portion measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas out of khasra no. 90 measuring 15 kanals 14 marlas and said portion purchased by Tarsem Singh was given separate khasra no. 90/1 and has been depicted as such in Tasmima site plan in mutation sanctioned in favour of Tarsem Singh. Remaining part of khasra no. 90 which was given no. 90/2 has been subsequently purchased by plaintiffs. Consequently, parties are separate owners of their specific portions purchased by them. Appellants are owners of khasra no. 90/1(1 kanal 4 marlas) whereas respondents/plaintiffs are owners of khasra no. 90/2 (14 kanals 10 marlas). Consequently, the aforesaid contention being meritless is negatived. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. Consequently, parties are separate owners of their specific portions purchased by them. Appellants are owners of khasra no. 90/1(1 kanal 4 marlas) whereas respondents/plaintiffs are owners of khasra no. 90/2 (14 kanals 10 marlas). Consequently, the aforesaid contention being meritless is negatived. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. Suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court because appellants have made encroachment on 12 marlas land of the plaintiffs. There is no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. On the other hand, finding recorded by lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiffs stands further fortified by the demarcation report made pursuant to order of this Court passed in this second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed.