ORDER 1. This is a second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.13A/2012 by the District Judge, Bhopal affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.139A/2006 by the IX Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal. A suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking declaration to the effect that the order passed on the representation of the appellant/plaintiff by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal was bad in law and was null and void and permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 restraining the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to demolish the house constructed by the appellant/plaintiff on the land situated in Afkar Colony, Aishbag, Bhopal. It was contended that such colony was privately established and plots were allotted to the members of the Society. The plot was situated on the lands of Survey No.813 and 788, which was purchased by the said colony from the erstwhile owner. Since the Housing Cooperative Society was constituted, the said Society obtained sanction from the competent authority of the State and started selling the plots. The plot, which was initially obtained by one Naseemuddin from the Society, was transferred to one Rajesh Yadav by unregistered sale-deed and from the said Rajesh Yadav, the plot was obtained by the wife of the appellant/plaintiff on 9.1.1991. The wife of the appellant/plaintiff died on 6.9.2001 bequeathing the entire property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The Colony earlier established was found to be illegal colony but under certain schemes of the State Government, the said colony was regularized and the appellant/plaintiff was required to deposit the fees and charges for development etc., which was already paid. However, all of a sudden, a notice was issued to the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent No.1 stating that the house constructed by the appellant was on the land, which was illegally encroached and, therefore, the same was liable to be demolished. It is contended that illegally it was said that the appellant/ plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the Nala situated on the adjoining land and, therefore, action was initiated. It is contended that illegally it was said that the appellant/ plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the Nala situated on the adjoining land and, therefore, action was initiated. On the basis of these allegations, it was said that the complaint made against the appellant by the respondent No. 2 was wholly misconceived and in fact the notice so issued against the appellant/plaintiff and orders passed on the representation made in this respect by the appellant/plaintiff, all were bad in law and liable to be declared as such. It was claimed that the respondent No.1 was liable to be restrained to demolish the house of the appellant. 2. The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was contested by the respondent Municipal Corporation on various grounds, inter alia that in fact the land in suit was never purchased by the appellant/plaintiff. In fact a house was got constructed by the wife of the appellant without proper sanction. As it was found that the house was constructed on part of the land, which was not even in possession of the appellant and in fact the land of Nala was encroached upon, therefore, the notice was rightly issued under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It was contended that on the basis of unregistered sale-deed, no right was acquired by the wife of the appellant/plaintiff and, therefore, such a right as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff is not made out. The land, which was in fact part of the Nala, was not to be settled in favour of the appellant and, therefore, action was not to be taken in that respect. Rightly the notice was given to the appellant for demolition of unauthorized construction and for removal of the encroachment from the land of Nala, therefore, such a declaration as sought could not be granted. It was further contended that on the similar ground when the demolition of part of the house of the appellant was done, a suit was filed by the appellant claiming damages but the said suit was dismissed holding that the appellant has failed to prove his title over the land. In view of this, it was contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. In view of this, it was contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. After marshalling the evidence available on record, the trial Court reached to the conclusion that the appellant could not prove his title over the land in suit. It was also not proved that the respondent Corporation was liable to compound and settle the construction made by the appellant. It was held that the order was rightly passed on the representation of the appellant and no loss was caused to the appellant by the demolition of the house of the appellant by the respondent No.1. The suit as a whole was dismissed. The appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and since the said appeal is also dismissed, this second appeal is required to be filed. 4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that there was no proper demarcation of the land done. Admittedly a colony was established by the Cooperative Housing Society and the said colony was treated to be illegal one, which was sought to be regularized under the scheme of the State Government. If the plot in the said Society was allotted to the member of the Society and even if the said plot was transferred by unregistered sale-deed, it could not be said that no right was available to the appellant/plaintiff. In fact after regularization of the colony made by the Society, the appellant would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour. In view of this, it is contended that if the specific layout submitted by the Society for the purposes of making of colony is seen, the plot on which the house was constructed fall within the land of Society. It was, thus, necessary to get a proper demarcation done to ascertain whether the plot, which was allotted to the erstwhile member of the Cooperative Housing Society, which was obtained on transfer by the appellant, was in fact a part of the land of the Society or was including the land of the Nala. It is pointed out that there were two demarcation reports submitted but specific area of the Nala was not shown. It is pointed out that there were two demarcation reports submitted but specific area of the Nala was not shown. On the other hand the Collector of the District himself has suggested that a proper demarcation be obtained and it is to be verified whether the house of the appellant was constructed on the bed of the Nala or not. In absence of such a demarcation report, findings could not have been given in this respect. It is contended that since the earlier suit was filed for grant of damages, particular aspect of situation of the plot of the appellant over which the house was constructed, was not determined, only the title of the appellant was seen, therefore, it was not right on the part of the lower appellate Court to dismiss the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the land in suit. Merely on this count, dismissal of the appeal of the appellant is not justified. 5. Such submissions of learned counsel for the appellant are examined. It was the appellant who was claiming that the plot was obtained by him from the erstwhile member of the Cooperative Housing Society, who was allotted the plot in particular place as per the plan approved by the competent authorities, in a private Society. If the appellant was of the view that his plot is situated not on the land of the Nala but was situated on the land of Cooperative Housing Society, he was to seek permission from the Court to appoint a Commissioner. To show that the land on which house of the appellant was constructed, he was not only required to establish his title but the actual physical possession of the plot was also to be proved. This was required to be done on the first stage when the suit was filed for grant of compensation. This particular aspect was not looked into by the appellant nor any evidence in this respect was produced. The very same notice issued to the appellant was also made a part in the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondent Municipal Corporation for payment of compensation. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant also stood dismissed. The appellant never took the matter to any higher forum and accepted the correctness of such findings. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant also stood dismissed. The appellant never took the matter to any higher forum and accepted the correctness of such findings. While testing the title of the appellant, in the earlier suit, findings were categorically recorded in this respect by the trial Court and unless such findings are disturbed, it was not possible for any Court to decide the issue relating to entitlement of the appellant to get the compounding of matter done by the respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation. Though not directly but indirectly such a claim of the appellant was hit by principle of res judicata as it was to be seen by the Courts below whether the appellant was entitled to seek such declaration of compounding or not. The declaration that such an order passed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal on the representation of appellant is null and void, would amount to indirectly entitlement of appellant for compounding of the matter, required to be done by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, in fact such a declaration could not be granted unless it is established by the appellant that the house constructed by him or his wife was situated on the land, which was exclusively belonging to the Cooperative Housing Society. 6. Learned lower appellate Court has examined these aspects in detail. Examining the findings recorded by the civil Court in the earlier suit of the appellant, it was categorically held that unless contrary is proved, the findings could not be given in favour of the appellant ignoring the earlier findings recorded by the civil Court on earlier suit of the appellant. It is the settled law that one, who claims something, is required to prove the same by adducing the evidence. The appellant/plaintiff was required to prove such fact that the land on which the house of the appellant/plaintiff is constructed, is not the part and parcel of the Nala said to be situated on the adjoining land. It was to be proved by the appellant that he has not made any encroachment. Without such a proof, the relief as claimed, could not be granted to the appellant. It was to be proved by the appellant that he has not made any encroachment. Without such a proof, the relief as claimed, could not be granted to the appellant. These findings have been recorded by two Courts below on rightful appreciation of the evidence available on record and the claim of the appellant/ plaintiff is rejected on merits and not only on the ground that it was based on unregistered document. This being so, no error of law is committed by the two Courts below in rejecting the claim of the appellant/plaintiff. 7. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.