Judgment Paramjeet Singh, J. This second appeal arises from a suit for possession of land comprised in khewat/katouni no.205/204/206, bearing khasra no.192, measuring 6 marlas, situated in village Fatehpur, H.B.No.448, Tehsil Jagadhri, filed by plaintiff-Pathana against defendants-Sardara and another which has been dismissed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 09.06.1981 and appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1987 whereby suit of plaintiff has been decreed and judgment and decree of the Court of first instance have been set aside. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts, as pleaded by plaintiff, are to the effect that he was owner of land comprised in khasra no.192 measuring 6 marlas. The defendants trespassed over the said in March, 1974. Defendants resisted the suit on ground that they along with Jati Ram purchased the house vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.1986 from Malak Chand and others and they were in actual possession of the house along with courtyard and the courtyard was surrounded by a wall. The said house has been in continuous physical possession of defendant since the time of its purchase. Earlier, it was a kacha house and they had converted it into a pucca house after purchase. They also installed a flourmill with electric meter fitted therein and installed a thrasher. It was also pleaded that earlier a suit was also instituted in the year 1974 against defendants by plaintiff regarding the land in khasra no.192 and the same was dismissed on 17.10.1974 and now the present suit was barred by principles of res judicata. It was also pleaded that suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Other allegations in the plaint were refuted. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP 1A. Whether the defendants have encroached upon or trespassed over the property comprised in khasra No.192, mentioned in the head note of the plaint as alleged? OPP 1B. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 2. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property as alleged in para No.1 of the additional pleas in the written statement? OPP 1B. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 2. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property as alleged in para No.1 of the additional pleas in the written statement? OPD 3. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs as envisaged under Section 35A CPC? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7A. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 7B. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been accepted and suit of plaintiff has been decreed. Hence, this regular second appeal. When appeal was admitted, no substantial question of law was framed. However, during the pendency of appeal, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record: (i) Whether an alternative plea of adverse possession in a case of confused identity of property presented by plaintiff, can be read as admission of title of plaintiff by the defendant? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment of Land Acquisition Collector does not suffer from any apparent illegality on the face of the record for not giving any findings on the issue of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? (iii) Whether failure of the plaintiff to establish the identity of the person he claimed to be owner, should not automatically result in dismissal of his suit? (iv) Whether the findings of the courts below on the issue of limitation are not perverse and vitiated and liable to be reversed dismissing the suit as time barred? (v) Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court are not vitiated on account of gross misreading of pleadings and evidence on record ? Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that plaint relating to suit no.22 of 1974 shows that plaintiff had brought a suit pertaining to suit land comprised in khasra no.192, but the same has not been taken into consideration. The lower Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that appellants were fully successful in proving their adverse possession. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that plaint relating to suit no.22 of 1974 shows that plaintiff had brought a suit pertaining to suit land comprised in khasra no.192, but the same has not been taken into consideration. The lower Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that appellants were fully successful in proving their adverse possession. On the other hand, learned senior counsel has contended in support of impugned judgment and decree and contended that there is no illegality or perversity therein. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of record and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, following substantial question of law arise for consideration: (i) Whether suit for possession could have been decreed with out identity of property having been established ? It is pertinent to mention that possession of suit land was sought by the plaintiff claiming it to be a part of khasra no.192 whereas defendants-appellants had taken a categoric stand that the suit property is not the part of khasra no.192. Since the ownership of plaintiff over khasra no.192 was admitted, plaintiff only had to establish that suit property is a part of khasra no.192, which he failed to do. The Court of first instance, thus, held that mere production of revenue record relating to khasra no.192 is not sufficient to prove that defendants have encroached upon the land particularly when the defendants have come forward with a plea that they do not deny ownership of the plaintiff over khasra no.192. Since the plaintiff did not make any application for appointment of local commissioner, the Court of first instance recorded a finding that plaintiff could not prove encroachment on khasra no.192, however, without making any investigation as to identity of property. In appeal filed by plaintiff before the lower Appellate Court, prayer was made for getting the land demarcated under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, however, the lower Appellate Court declined the plea holding that when the defendants have admitted their possession over the site in dispute, then there was no question of furnishing any proof of encroachment by the plaintiff and accordingly reversed the findings of the Court of first instance on this account and ultimately decreed the suit. From perusal of record, it is clear that the categoric stand of the defendants before the courts below was that suit property was not part of khasra no.192. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to establish identity of property but before the Court of first instance, the plaintiff did not take any step for demarcation of property. In such scenario, the proper course for the courts below would have been to direct investigation by appointing local commissioner as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and others (2008) 8 SCC 671 . Thus, the lower Appellate court was not right in decreeing the suit without sending a local commissioner for demarcation of suit property. The question of law raised above is thus answered in negative. Since such an investigation was not directed by the courts below, during the pendency of appeal, this Court vide order dated 03.08.1987 had directed learned Sub Judge Ist Class to make an enquiry and submit his report whether or not site in dispute is part of khasra no.192. In compliance thereof, learned Additional Senior Sub Judge submitted his report dated 02.05.1989 that the local commissioner visited the spot and demarcated the suit land. According to the local commissioner, people have constructed their residential houses in khasra no.192 and, therefore, it is not possible to measure and demarcate the suit property. It has been further submitted that in view of report of the local commissioner, suit land cannot be said to be part of khasra no.192. Thus, in view of my findings on substantial question of law raised above and taking into consideration the report of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are not sustainable. The plaintiff has failed to prove encroachment over the property comprised in khasra no.192. In view of this, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate court are set aside and judgment and decree of the Court of first instance are restored. Decree-sheet be prepared.