JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the suit khasra number (s), was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages amounting to Rs.500/- as against the defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land comprised in khasra No.184, measuring 10-4-1 bighas is recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendants are strangers, who entered the suit land o 18.10.1998 and unlawfully cut the grass from the suit land causing damage to the extent of Rs.500/-, hence, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, and, for recovery of damages. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the defendants and the plaintiff are co-sharers of the suit land. Khasra No.184 is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and adjoining to that khasra number there is Khasra No.185, which is a Nallah and adjoining to it, is Khasra No.188, owned and possessed by the defendants. They pleaded that they had cut and removed the grass from their own land, comprised in Khasra No.188, but they never interfered in the land of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No.184 since there is a Nalla in between the two lands as recorded in the revenue record. They denied having cut the grass from the suit land or caused any loss to the plaintiff and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the defendant after intruding into the suit land has cut and removed grass worth Rs.500/-? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.500/- from the defendants, if issue No.2 is proved in affirmative? OPP 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.500/- from the defendants, if issue No.2 is proved in affirmative? OPP 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendants/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 16.07.2004, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- a). Whether both the lower courts have misread, misinterpreted and mis-construed the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, especially report of Local Commissioner, Ex.PW5/A and statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellants? Substantial question of Law No.1: 7. Khasra No. 184, is, uncontrovertedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, whereas, Khasra No.188 is owned, and, possessed by the defendant. Though, in the revenue record, both khasra numbers, stand reflected to be segregated by khasra No.185, whereon a Nallah rather exists. Substantial question of Law No.1: 7. Khasra No. 184, is, uncontrovertedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, whereas, Khasra No.188 is owned, and, possessed by the defendant. Though, in the revenue record, both khasra numbers, stand reflected to be segregated by khasra No.185, whereon a Nallah rather exists. However, upon perusing the report of the local commissioner, embodied in Ex.PW5/A, and, proven by PW-5, apparent manifestations, are, displayed therein qua (a) the Nallah borne, on Khasra No.185, upon, efforts, for, determination, of its exact location, on the spot, by making an apt reference, to the Aks Musabi, wherein, it is disclosed to be occurring 44 karams away, from, the adjoining thereto khasra number 184, and, Khasra No. 188, yet rather, on apt measurings thereof, on the spot, being carried, from its denoted place, in the Aks Musabi, it rather standing located, 32 karams, on, the western side, (b) qua the measurements, carried on the spot, for fixing the boundaries, of, khasra No.184, and, of Khasra No.188, khasra numbers whereof, are located, on, either side of the Nallah, Nallah whereof, is, borne on khasra No.185, (c) hence unraveling qua there being apparent movements, and, dislocation (s), of, about 32 Karams qua boundaries of each of the relevant khasra numbers, vis-a-vis, their respectively denoted, locations in the Aks Musabi, (c), of, in case the fixation of boundaries of the contested khasra numbers, being made, on anvil, of actual measurements thereof, being carried on the spot, thereupon, the boundaries, of khasra numbers, occurring in the entire mohal, being disturbed, and, consequent thereto, litigations rather hence brewing. The aforesaid echoings made in Ex.PW5/A, obviously, do not firmly conclude, the core of the controversy, existing, inter se the parties at contest (i) that the Nallah borne, on Khasra No.185, Nallah whereof, segregates Khasra No.184, and, Khasra No.188, hence, holding on the spot, dimensions in consonance, with, the dimensions thereof, as, denoted in Aks musabi, (ii) rather with the inability of the demarcation officer to fix, boundaries thereof, concomitantly, renders erectable a conclusion, that, even the boundaries of the contested khasra numbers, remaining undetermined. 8. 8. In aftermath, with lack of firm determination, on the spot, of, the exact location, of, the contested khasra numbers, thereupon, both the learned Courts below, were disabled, to firmly rest, a, conclusion qua any interference being made by the defendants, upon, khasra number 184, interferences whereof, are, comprised in theirs purportedly cutting grass therefrom. However, the learned Courts below, in sheer disregard, to the infirmities aforesaid, borne in Ex.PW5/A, though, it constituted the best evidence, for, locating the exact boundaries, of, the contested khasra numbers, (i) AND, only with want, of, any infirmities therein, it was rather thereon concludable, that the alleged interference (s) or invasion (s) purportedly made by the defendants, upon, suit khasra number, borne in Khasra No. 184, hence standing unflinchingly proven. (ii) Contrarily, despite, infirmities aforesaid being carried therein, both the learned courts below imputed credence, to the oral testification of PWs, who, rather however, were not experts in determining the boundaries, of, the suit kahsra numbers. Also it was grossly improper for the learned trial Court, to, on anvil, of, a deposition borne in the testification of DW-3, wherein, she unveils, of the defendants cutting grass, upon, the suit khasra number, despite hers being incapacitated, to, in the absence of any firm demarcation report, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid act, being hence evidently committed upon khasra No.184, rather to make any clear worthwhile deposition in respect thereto, to, hence mete sanctity, vis-a-vis, her oral testification, whereas, in the learned first appellate Court, hence, meteing credence thereto, has, committed, a, gross illegality, and, impropriety. 9. Be that as it may, the plaintiff's suit would succeed, only upon firm echoings, standing borne, in the best documentary evidence, comprised in the apt report, of the demarcating officer, report whereof, though is adduced, yet, for reasons aforestated, it being infirm, (i) nonetheless, even when any subsequent hereto, valid demarcation is held, of the contested suit khasra numbers, and, in course thereof, the boundaries with specificity and exactitude, of the contested suit khasra numbers, stands fixed, and, if thereafter any evident interferences, are made by the defendants, upon, the suit khasra numbers, it being yet open for the plaintiff, to institute a fresh suit. However, yet at this stage, for reasons aforestated, the concurrently recorded judgements and decrees, hence, warrant interference. 10. However, yet at this stage, for reasons aforestated, the concurrently recorded judgements and decrees, hence, warrant interference. 10. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants, and, against the plaintiff/respondent. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below, are, set aside, and, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.