JUDGMENT : 1. The trial Court passed a decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1993, restraining the defendants permanently from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff for construction of boundary wall as alleged in paragraph 7(1) of the plaint. The defendant No.1 was directed to remove the wooden stumps which he had erected in the plot of the plaintiff as shown in the map at Exh.32. The map prepared by the Surveyor at Exh.31 was treated as part and parcel of the decree passed by the trial Court. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1995 and that has been allowed by the lower appellate Court on 11.07.2002.The suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal. 2. On 21.09.2005, this Court admitted the second appeal on the question No.4 framed in the memo of appeal, which is reproduced below. "Whether the learned District Judge was right in allow the appellant to urge a ground, which was not raised in the Memo of Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, and no leave was sought by the appellant, before the Court to urge on the said ground at the time of final hearing?" 3. The question involved before the trial Court was regarding title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The trial Court held it in affirmative, whereas the appellate Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant no.1 has encroached upon his portion of the property by fixing pegs for tethering cattle. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the record and proceedings, which includes the copy of plaint, written statement and other evidence available on record. I find that the plaintiff has failed to establish the boundaries of house No. 205 (old) which corresponds to new house No. 1555 in Ward No. 7 at Nerpinglai. I have seen the map Exh.31 relied upon by the trial Court. From the said map, I do not find the boundaries of the house owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Gram Panchayat for grant of permission to construct compound wall, which has been granted with a condition that the wall should be constructed by leaving permanent road adjacent to the boundary of the property of the defendant no.1. From the said map, I do not find the boundaries of the house owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Gram Panchayat for grant of permission to construct compound wall, which has been granted with a condition that the wall should be constructed by leaving permanent road adjacent to the boundary of the property of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff did not make an issue of conditional permission granted by the Gram Panchayat as a matter of dispute before the Courts below. In view of this, the substantial question of law framed by this Court does not at all arise in the present matter. The second appeal is dismissed. No order as costs.