JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.70 of 2004, dated 11.5.2005, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No.18 of 1998, dated 15.5.2004. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) maintained a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’) alleging that he is co-owner-in-possession, as co-sharer of the suit land comprised in Khata No.57 min, Khatauni No.140, Khasra No.553, measuring 4 kanals 9 marlas, situated in Tika Jakhyol, Mauza Mehalta, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. There is a road on the suit land, but defendants have no right, title or interest therein and are stranger to the suit land. Defendants started interfering in the suit land by digging the same adjoining to their own and possessed land for raising construction of a house. Defendants did not desist from their unlawful acts, despite repeated request. 3. Defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, estoppel, maintainability and dismissal of suit with special costs, under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, defendants stated that the suit land was ‘Gair Mumkin Raste’ owned by so many persons including the plaintiff. They had been using the alleged path for the last fifty years. Defendants never encroached upon the suit land, as no construction over the suit land was raised by the defendants. Rather, the construction was made on their owned and possessed land of Khasra Nos.518, 519 and 520 comprising of Khasra No.45. 4. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues : “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession by way of demolition of such construction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged ?OPD. 6. OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged ?OPD. 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD. 7. Whether the defendants are using the path through the land in suit from the time of their ancestors as alleged ? OPD. 8. Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issues No.1 to 6 in negative, Issue No.7 in affirmative, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby the plaintiff maintained first appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, assailing the findings of learned Trial Court being against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. The learned lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Court below. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 10.10.2006, on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the two Courts below ought not to have placed reliance upon the demarcation report Ex.DW3/A, because that report pertained to demarcation of Khasra No.517 adjacent to the suit land and not to the suit land itself ?” 7. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned Court below without appreciating the evidence and facts, which have come on record to its true perspective and the fact that Khasra No.553 was joint inter se the appellant-plaintiff and other co-owner and defendants were having no right thereon cannot raise any construction on Khasra No.553. The learned Court below has not taken into consideration the statement of DW-5, in cross-examination, wherein he has admitted that he has constructed a shed in Khasra No.553 and that it was constructed 20-30 years ago. He has also refer to various provision of law and stated that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that DW-4, in cross-examination has stated that the defendant has not constructed a shed and Khasra No.553 is not owned by the plaintiff, but it is a ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’. 9. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that DW-4, in cross-examination has stated that the defendant has not constructed a shed and Khasra No.553 is not owned by the plaintiff, but it is a ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that though the path has been shifted to other place, defendants have no right to raise construction. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 11. In order to prove its case, plaintiff-Prem Chand, PW-1, has deposed that defendants have raised construction by way of digging and causing damage to his courtyard. Ex.P-1, copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91, shows that suit land is owned by so many co-owners including plaintiff, Prem Chand and it is recorded as ‘ Share-aam-Gair- Mumkin Rasta’. PW-2, Sadhu Ram Verma, Local Commissioner, has deposed that after demarcating the suit land, he prepared his report, Ex.PW2/A, which shows that defendants had encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 0-0-6 i.e. 6 sarsai, as shown in tatima, Ex.PW2/D. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not state in his report, from which point, he did draw the perpendicular and his report also did not reveal about the fixation of three pucca points. PW-3, Bhag Singh, also deposed that the defendants had encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. He has also stated that on the suit land, there is in existence shop of the plaintiff. PW-4, Amar Nath, deposed about raising of shed by the defendants over the suit land. He admitted about demarcation at the behest of the defendant through Dile Ram, Tehsildar. PW-5, Kirpa Ram, is a witness qua taking of demarcation through Tehsildar by the plaintiff, who found unauthorized possession of defendant Chuni Lal. Defendant, Chuni Lal, has categorically deposed that he had earlier taken demarcation from Dile Ram, Tehsildar and in that demarcation, no encroachment was found. DW-3, Dile Ram, Tehsildar, deposed that after carrying out the demarcation, he had given his report, Ex.DW3/A. In his cross-examination, there is nothing to shatter his credibility. His report revealed that he had fixed three pucca points ‘A, B, C’ before starting the measurement. DW-3, Dile Ram, Tehsildar, deposed that after carrying out the demarcation, he had given his report, Ex.DW3/A. In his cross-examination, there is nothing to shatter his credibility. His report revealed that he had fixed three pucca points ‘A, B, C’ before starting the measurement. Although, he did not record the statement of parties as to the fixation of pucca points. He has measured the ‘ karukans’ of the land in dispute after consulting the ‘ Aks Musabi and Shajra Latha’. He has also measured all the ‘ karukans’ as its detail has been given in his report. His report is further revealed that over the suit land, the road has been constructed and there was no encroachment over the same. The Local Commissioner report Ex.DW3/A, further revealed that plaintiff, Prem Chand, did not prefer to associate himself after the demarcation and he preferred to carry out the construction work. DW-4, Bhagwan Dass, is one of the co-owner of the suit land and cousin brother of the plaintiff. According to him, no construction of defendants was found on any portion of the suit land when demarcation was carried out. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Chuni Lal, is not the owner of land comprised in Khasra No.553, on which, the road was constructed. He has also admitted that the shop and house of Prem Chand-plaintiff has been constructed on the suit land comprised in Khasra No.72. 12. This evidence itself shows that the demarcation report, Ex.DW3/A is a piece of evidence, which is reliable, as it is carried out after taking pucca points and after associating all the parties and no encroachment was found to be made by the defendants over the suit land. This fact is also corroborated by the other witness i.e. Bhagwan Dass, co-owner of the suit land, cousin brother of the plaintiff, who has stated that no construction of the defendant was found on the suit land, when the demarcation was carried out. It is also not known why the plaintiff has not participated in the demarcation process and went to see his construction when the demarcation was carried out, though he was present there. 13. Plaintiff, Prem Chand, has stated that the defendant had carried out the digging and thereby he had caused encroachment to his courtyard. But the Local Commissioner report Ex.PW2/A did not reveal any encroachment over the courtyard of the plaintiff. 13. Plaintiff, Prem Chand, has stated that the defendant had carried out the digging and thereby he had caused encroachment to his courtyard. But the Local Commissioner report Ex.PW2/A did not reveal any encroachment over the courtyard of the plaintiff. It is also relevant to mention that the Local Commissioner has mentioned that over 0-0-6 i.e. 6 sasrsai of suit land, the defendant had raised construction of his house. So, the statement of defendant Chuni Lal made by him in his cross-examination that over the suit land, he had constructed one shed, is not fatal. Because the Local Commissioner report is not revealing the encroachment made by the defendant of the construction of shed. Therefore, the statement of defendant regarding the construction of shed over the suit land is not clear. It has not been made clear by the plaintiff that over which portion of the suit land, shed was constructed by the defendant and what is the measurement of shed. 14. From the above, it is clear that the findings so recorded by the learned Courts below are after appreciating the facts and law, which have come on record to its true perspective and so, substantial question of law, in these circumstances is answered holding that the learned Courts below have committed no illegality while placing reliance upon the demarcation report Ex.DW3/A, as it was for Khasra No.517. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is without merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.