JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under section 100 CPC by the plaintiffs' is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.2A/2003 by Additional District Judge, Sironj District Vidisha confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.126A/2001 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Sironj District Vidisha. 2. The trial Court has decreed the suit inter alia holding that the plaintiffs' are lawful owners of the agricultural land admeasuring 0.803 hectare out of 1.581 hectare falling in survey No.2455 situated in village Sironj, District Vidisha. However, for the reason that the suit land/plot 30 feet × 60 feet which was alleged to have been encroached by the defendant No.1 was not identifiable as to whether the same fell in the land of plaintiffs' ownership, the trial Court has refused to grant the injunction. Accordingly, the suit is partially decreed. On appeal, the first appellate Court has concurred with the findings and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants' has laid emphasis on exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-6 to bolster his submission that the suit land falls within the land of the ownership of plaintiffs'. Exhibit P-6 is the document; a registered sale deed dated 1.7.1983 by which the land in question has been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs' by its original owner whereunder the boundaries of the suit land have been described. Exhibit P-2 is an order dated 23.9.1999 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj allowing the application under sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 filed for mutation in the revenue record by the plaintiffs'. The said order has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sironj by exhibit P-3 dated 14.11.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants' contends that once order has been passed by the revenue authorities (supra), the suit land is well described. Therefore, the trial Court has fallen in error having dismissed the suit as regards the relief of possession is concerned. Hence, prayed for setting aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below to that extent. 5. Therefore, the trial Court has fallen in error having dismissed the suit as regards the relief of possession is concerned. Hence, prayed for setting aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below to that extent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting defendant/respondent No.1 contends that for want of specific location as regards description of the alleged encroachment of 30 feet × 60 feet by the defendant, the trial Court has not committed any error in not granting the aforesaid relief to the plaintiffs'/appellants' as the aforesaid fact has been well explained in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below while exercising the jurisdiction by this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. Having perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs' are having title over the aforesaid suit land, i.e., 0.803 hectare out of 1.581 hectare falling in survey No.2455. There is no dispute about the same. However, without entering into the dispute as regards location of 30 feet × 60 feet as to whether the same falls within the land of the plaintiffs' ownership, it is considered apposite to direct appellants' to approach the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj by moving an appropriate application seeking demarcation of the boundaries of the land described in the order dated 23.9.1999 (Exhibit P-2) within two months' along with certified copy of the judgment passed today. The Naib Tahsildar, Sironj after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned shall decide the same by a reasoned order on its own merits, in accordance with law within three months' therefrom. If it is found that the suit land/plot, i.e., 30 feet × 60 feet falls in the land of the plaintiffs' ownership, the alleged encroachment to that extent shall be removed by the defendant No.1 and vacant possession thereof be delivered to the plaintiffs'. For a period of 05 (five) months', both the parties shall maintain status quo over the suit land/plot as it exists today. 8. With the aforesaid direction, second appeal stands disposed of. 9. For a period of 05 (five) months', both the parties shall maintain status quo over the suit land/plot as it exists today. 8. With the aforesaid direction, second appeal stands disposed of. 9. Before parting with the judgment, it is observed that the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj shall not be influenced by the findings and observations made by the Courts below and this Court while deciding the issue as regards demarcation of the suit land/plot.