JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is defendant's second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 2.9.2006 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.103-A/2004 by Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa; whereby, judgment and decree dated 30.7.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.103-A/1992 by Civil Judge Class-I, Mauganj, District Rewa has been reversed. 3. Plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction and for possession over a part of land (7'x25') area 0.02 acre bearing Khasra No.2778 situated at village Gurheta, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa after demolition of wall constructed thereon was non-suited by the trial Court on a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant had raised new construction thereover. 4. Plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction and for possession over a part of land (7'x25') area 0.02 acre bearing Khasra No.2778 situated at village Gurheta, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa after demolition of wall constructed thereon was non-suited by the trial Court on a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant had raised new construction thereover. 4. The appellate Court, however, reversed the finding on Commissioner's report holding that plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that having owned the suit property bearing Khasra No.2779 admeasuring 0.08 acre the defendant had raised a wall over the portion thereon admeasuring 7'x25', the appellate Court found:- **11- fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ ekSf[kd vkSj nLrkosth lk{; ds ifj'khyu ls Li"V gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe vihykFkhZ us iz-ih-1 ds foØ;i= ls [kjhnh gSA izdj.k esa foØ; ds izfrQy dk dksbZ fookn ugha Fkk rRlacaèk esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vlaxr O;k[;k dh gSA rFkk LFkkbZ O;kns'k ds ekeys esa gd dk iz'u vlaxr gksrk gS] ,slk ekxZn'kZu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds U;k; n`"Vkar dqaoj yky fo- HkS:yky ,oa vU; 1993 jk-fu-382 ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vusd U;k; n`"Vkarksa dk mYys[k djrs gq;s fn;k x;k gSA ijarq fo}ku O;ogkj U;k;kèkh'k us bl izdj.k esa gd ds laca/k esa tks O;k[;k dh gS og vlaxr vkSj vuqfpr gSA ekeys esa dsoy ;g ns[kuk gS fd vihykFkhZ oknh oknxzLr Hkwfe ds vkfèkiR; esa gSA vkSj mlds vkf/kiR; esa izR;FkhZ] izfroknh vk/kkjghu rjhds ls gLr{ksi dj jgs gSaA izR;FkhZ izfroknh dk rdZ gS fd mldk iq'rSuh edku th.kZ&'kh.kZ gkyr esa gks x;k Fkk ftldh ejEer vkSj lq/kkj mlus bZaV xkjk dh nhokj cukdj fd;k gSA dksbZ u;k fuekZ.k ugha fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa dfe'uj izfrosnu iz-lh-1 vkSj dfe'uj }kjk ekSds ij cuk;k x;k iapukek dks ns[kkA U;k;ky; us dfe'uj dks LFky fujh{k.k gsrq dqN [kkl fcanqvksa ij izfrosnu nsus ds fy;s dgk x;k Fkk dfe'uj izfrosnu esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd fookfnr LFky ij rhu fnu igys fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gSA iDdh bZaV dh nhokj 10 bap eksVh vkSj 6 QqV ÅWaph izfroknh }kjk cukbZ xbZ gSA vihykFkhZ oknh dk Hkh ;gh dguk gS fd mlus fu"ks/kkKk dk ;g nkok is'k fd;kA tks fnukad 23-3-1992 dks izLrqr fd;k gSA mls izfroknh us 21-3-1992 dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ds 7 QqV pkSM+h vkSj 25 QqV yach Hkwfe ij uhao [kksndj edku cukus dh /kedh nh Fkh rFkk fuekZ.k lkexzh ,d= dj uhao [kksnuk izkjaHk dj fn;k Fkk] euk djus ij izfroknh ugha ekukA dfe'uj izfrosnu fnukad 26-2-1992 dks fn;k x;k gSA LFky fujh{k.k ds iwoZ izfroknh us oknxzLr Hkwfe ij nhokj [kM++h dj nh FkhA ekSds ij dfe'uj us izfroknh dk dksbZ iqjkuk fuekZ.k dh ejEer djuk ugha ik;k gS tcfd izfroknh us vius iqjkus edku dh ejEer djuk cryk;k gSA [kljk uEcj 2279 jdck 0-08 ,dM+ dh Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk iwoZtksa ds le; ls edku cuk gSA ;g rF; izfroknh dh lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh us tokc nkos ds lkFk tks utjh uD'kk izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa vius edku ds mÙkj dh vksj o nf{k.k dh vksj vU; yksxksa ds edku gksuk cryk;k gS] ijarq vius fdlh iM+kslh dk ijh{k.k U;k;ky; esa ugha djk;k gSA rFkk izfroknh ;Kukjk;.k us U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s dFku ds iSjk Ø-2 esa crk;k gS fd mldk edku [kljk ua-2779 ,oa 2780 dh Hkwfe ijiq'rSuh :i ls cuk gqvk gSa ijarq iq'rSuh edku dh iqf"V ds fy;s xzkeiapk;r ;k uxjiapk;r dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA iz-Mh-1 vkSj iz-Mh-2 ds [kljs dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi;ksa esa [kljk ua-2780 dh Hkwfe ij izfroknh dh vkcknh ntZ gSA fookfnr [kljk ua-2779 dh Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk edku iwoZtksa ds le; ls cuk gS bl ckr dh iqf"V izfroknh dh fo'oluh; lk{; ls ugha gksrh gSaA** 5. These findings being based on Commissioner's report as also on the basis of material documents on record i.e. sale deed dated 31.3.1980 (Exhibit P/1) and Panchshala Khasra (Exhibits P/2 and P/3), cannot be faulted with. 6. It is contended on behalf of appellant/defendant that without seeking demarcation of the land in question the first appellate Court committed error in directing for permanent injunction and demolition of wall raised over the suit property as it cannot be ascertained from the report of Commissioner that the wall was constructed over the property belonging to plaintiff. Support is being sought for on a decision in Jaswant v. Deen Dayal : (2011)2 MPLJ 576 . 7. There can be no cavil that in respect of boundary dispute the onus is on the plaintiff to get it established by cogent material evidence that the disputed portion belongs to him. For that, unless such disputed portion is carved out in definite terms, it is nay difficult to establish the right of a person seeking such declaration. 8. The case at hand discloses a different picture. It was the stand of plaintiff, that he is the owner of land admeasuring 0.08 acre purchased vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1980. It was also a stand that over 0.02 acre construction is being raised by the defendant under the garb of repairing and restoration. It was defendant's defence right through that it is not a reconstruction but restoration of old house which is being taken recourse to. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to have established that the construction which is being raised as restoration work carried out at the existing place; whereas, the Commissioner in his report has clearly stated that a new construction is carried out and is not a case of repairing being done. 9. The appellate Court, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, was well justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved his case that defendants have carried out a construction over the portion of his land. It being not a case of defendant that 0.02 acre belongs to him whereon the construction is being raised. Thus, the decision relied on in Jaswant (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant/defendant; wherein, it was held that in case of boundary dispute, incumbent it would be to call for demarcation by issuing Commission. 10. It being not a case of defendant that 0.02 acre belongs to him whereon the construction is being raised. Thus, the decision relied on in Jaswant (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant/defendant; wherein, it was held that in case of boundary dispute, incumbent it would be to call for demarcation by issuing Commission. 10. Having thus considered, no substantial question of law arises for consideration as would warrant an interference. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no costs.