JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. – Heard argument of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Admitted case of the parties in suit for permanent injunction was that plaintiff is owner of plots old number 632-Ga and 632-Gha, new number 999/2, which is situated near plot numbers 668 and 669 of defendant. Plaintiff had sought relief for his plots old number 632-Ga and 632-Gha, new number 999/2. 3. The trial Court had framed specific issue as to whether disputed land situated over plots old number 632-Ga and 632-Gha, new number 999/2 is of plaintiff or it is situated on plots No. 668 and 669 of defendant. No survey report has been obtained and the specific findings of two Courts below are there, that the disputed property is situated over plaintiff's plot nos. 632-Ga and 632-Gha, new No. 999/2. 4. Original suit was decreed for the relief of prohibitory injunction and also for mandatory injunction for removal of disputed constructions over property of plaintiff. The first appeal preferred against the judgment of trial court was dismissed. Then defendants had preferred second appeal. 5. In second appeal following substantial questions of law are framed: "Whether findings of the two Courts below regarding the location of the disputed property, plaintiff's plot No. 632 Ga and 632 Gha, present No. 999/2 are correct and are legally acceptable?" 6. In Second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant challenged that the findings of lower courts are perverse because no survey was done on this property to verify the exact situation of the disputed property. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that even though there is no survey report for the disputed property but the disputed plot is identifiable on the basis of the other evidences. 8. In plaint, detail of disputed property is given which is plot No. 632-Gha M. & plot No. 632-Ga, the new number of which is 999/2. The disputed construction is said to have been raised on this new plot No. 999/2 and lower courts have passed the decree for permanent injunction regarding this property of plot old No. 632-Ga and 632-Gha, present number 999/2. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant would have been unacceptable when there would have been dispute as to whether plot number of the property for which relief sought was disputed in present case. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant would have been unacceptable when there would have been dispute as to whether plot number of the property for which relief sought was disputed in present case. In original suit the specific relief was sought for aforesaid plot No. 632-Ga M. & 632-Gha, new No. 999/2. For this property the trial court had passed the decree and lower appellate court had confirmed the said decree. The operative portion of judgment of trial court is as follows: vkns'k nkok oknh fo: ) izfroknhx.k lO;; vkKIr fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknhx.k ds fo: ) 'kk'or O;kns'k tkjh fd;k tkrk gS fd os fookfnr vkjkth esa fdlh izdkj dk [ku[kksn o fuekZ.k u djsa] u gh oknh ds iDdk dqvkWa dks /oLr djs] u mlesa beyh ds isM+ dks dkVsA izfroknhx.k dks vkKkid O;kns'k bl vk'k; dks tkjh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k ds [kljk la0&632 x o 632 ?k gky ua0&998@2 ij fd;k x;s rkehjkr dks fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vanj gVkuk lqfuf'pr djsa vU;Fkk oknh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd os U;k;ky; dh lgk;rk ls mDr rkehjkr dks /oLr djk ldrs gSaA fnukad 15@12@2010 g0 flfoy tt tw0fn0 jk0 xat] lksuHknz 9. Rule 4 Order 7 CPC reads as under: "3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property-Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers." 10. This provision makes it clear that in case of immovable property number in records of settlement is sufficient for identifying a property. In present case, it has been proved by evidence, as has been held by the concurrent finding of lower courts that plaintiffs are owner in possession of plot old No. 632-Ga M. & 632-Gha, new No. 999/2. This fact is not disputed by defendant/appellant. This number has been carved out from old numbers during consolidation operation which has been completed. Therefore its details are present in revenue records. For this plot old number 632-Ga M. & 632-Gha/new number of 999/2, the decree of lower courts had been passed. At the time of execution, this plot number can also be conveniently identified. This number has been carved out from old numbers during consolidation operation which has been completed. Therefore its details are present in revenue records. For this plot old number 632-Ga M. & 632-Gha/new number of 999/2, the decree of lower courts had been passed. At the time of execution, this plot number can also be conveniently identified. Therefore above mentioned substantial question of law is decided in the manner that the finding of two lower courts regarding location of disputed property of plot No. 632- Ga M. & 632-Gha/new number 999/2 are correct and legally acceptable. 11. Since plaintiffs/respondents are owner of this disputed property for which decree has been passed, and there is no matter of identifiability of said property for which decree is passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent, therefore, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. The only apprehension of appellant side is that since survey of disputed property was not done, therefore, there may be possibility that appellants' property may be encroached by plaintiff/respondents. This contention is found unacceptable for two reasons. First reason is that it was the defendants/appellants who had not only been non-cooperative but had raised obstruction in the survey of the spot due to which it could not be completed, so they will not be permitted to take benefit of their old mischievous overt acts. Secondly, as has been rightly held by the court below, that since appellants/defendants had opposed the survey proceedings on spot in such way that it could not be completed due to which comes this stage that case had to be decided without survey proceedings, therefore presumption of this fact goes against appellants and it may be presumed that if survey would have been completed then its result would have been against defendants-appellants. For this reasons, and for the reason that decree has been passed for specific plot number, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants are found unacceptable. 13. There had been concurrent finding of fact that disputed property is owned by plaintiff-respondent and they are entitled to get the unauthorized construction present on it removed, and are also entitled for permanent injunction. There was no other question of law which is to be considered in this second appeal, except above mentioned substantial question of law which has already been decided against appellants. There was no other question of law which is to be considered in this second appeal, except above mentioned substantial question of law which has already been decided against appellants. The judgments of two lower courts are found correct and are hereby confirmed and, accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.