JUDGMENT : The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 288/1 of 04/01 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the making of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, and, of possession against the defendant(s), and, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. The learned trial Court, through its verdict made thereon, on 19.11.2007, granted the espoused decree to the plaintiff. 2. The aggrieved defendant, preferred thereagainst an appeal, bearing Civil Appeal No. 3/13 of 2008, before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, through its verdict made on 14.07.2008, upon, the afore Civil Appeal, after partly reversing the judgment, and, decree as became impugned before it, declined to the plaintiff, the decree of mandatory injunction through demolition of the wall constructed by the defendant hence purportedly over the suit land. However, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the according by the learned trial Court of the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, against the defendant qua the suit khasra number(s) concerned. 3. The plaintiff Ram Dass being aggrieved, from the afore made verdict by the learned first appellate court, is led to constitute thereagainst the extant appeal before this Court. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 16.04.2009, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the ld. Lower appellate court below was justified in declining the relief of mandatory injunction despite coming to the conclusion that the defendant has interfered with the suit land owned by the plaintiff by raising wall over the same? 2. Whether the ld. Lower appellate court below was justified in ignoring the demarcation report Ex.PW2/A as well as Ex./PW3/A i.e. the spot map conclusively proved on record? 3. Whether the demarcation conducted with the consent of the parties and not objected to at any stage can be discarded on technical reasons? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 5. The appellant/plaintiff, would succeed in ensuring that the declining to him of the relief of mandatory injunction, by way of demolition of the built up wall, upon a portion of the suit land, being infirm, only upon, his convincing this Court, that the demarcation report as embodied in Ex.PW2/A, became validly drawn. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 5. The appellant/plaintiff, would succeed in ensuring that the declining to him of the relief of mandatory injunction, by way of demolition of the built up wall, upon a portion of the suit land, being infirm, only upon, his convincing this Court, that the demarcation report as embodied in Ex.PW2/A, became validly drawn. Obviously the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was enjoined to bring forth cogent evidence, in display that, the discarding of Ex.PW2/A, by the learned First Appellate Court, was grossly inapt. 6. In the afore endeavour, it is trite and settled law, that for any demarcation report rather being pronounced to be validly made, the apposite demarcation is to be clinchingly proven to be carried by the officer concerned, through his, at the relevant time hence making the relevant detections of the apposite fixed points, only from the musabi concerned, and, thereafter his relaying them onto the site(s) concerned. However, at the very outset, with PW-2 in his testification making an admission, that at the relevant time of his making demarcation of the relevant site, his not holding the musabi, rather his conducting demarcation from latha, as kept in the patwar circle concerned. Therefore, wants supra, at the relevant time, with the demarcating officer rather of the musabi, conspicuously hence comprising the most solemn documentary evidence of immense evidentiary vigour, for a valid demarcation of the site concerned, being validly conducted, by the demarcating officer concerned, obviously does constrain, this Court to invalidate the entire demarcation conducted by PW-2, and, also constrains this Court to invalidate Ex.PW2/A. 7. Since in Ex.PW2/A, some encroachments become enunciated, yet with the afore encroachments becoming invalidly disclosed in Ex.PW2/A, and, also when no apt tatima becomes appended with Ex.APW2/A, rather accurately delineating thereins, the extent of the purported encroachments, as, made by the defendant, upon the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the declining of the relief of mandatory injunction comprised in the purported wall as, raised by the defendant, upon the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff, being demolished, is well merited, and, does not deserve any interference being made by this Court. 8. Therefore, the declining of the relief of mandatory injunction comprised in the purported wall as, raised by the defendant, upon the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff, being demolished, is well merited, and, does not deserve any interference being made by this Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended before this Court, that since there was an apparent consent of the contesting litigants, vis-a-vis, the fixed points rather wherefrom the demarcating officer commenced the demarcation proceedings, and, also concluded them. Therefore, he contends that legal infirmity, if any, in the demarcating officer rather conducting demarcation proceedings hence without his at the relevant stage, holding the musabi, does pale into insignificance. However, the afore submission, as made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, cannot be accepted, as consent, if any, meted by the contesting litigants to the commencement, and, culmination of the relevant proceedings, would hold tenacity only when the demarcating officer, at the relevant time was evidently holding the afore document, which alone holds under law the evidentiary worth of utmost vigour. Reiteratedly, in the absence of musabi, neither the fixed points wherefrom the demarcating officer was enjoined to conduct a valid demarcation of the relevant sites, were ascertainable nor hence the contesting litigants were ably empowered to under law mete any valid consent, to the fixed points, if any, available in the latha concerned, document whereof, otherwise also was admittedly held in the possession of the demarcating officer, rather in contemporaneity to his commencing demarcating proceedings, and, his concluding them. Therefore, the consent, if any, of the contesting litigants to the fixed points, if any, wherefrom the demarcating officer commenced, and, concluded the demarcation proceedings, is of no relevance at all. 9. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents, and, against the appellant. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first appellate court, is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first appellate court, is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.