JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and decree dated 25.07.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 130-G/XIII-2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 26/2004 was partly modified. 2. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were defendants before the learned trial Court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the status which they held before the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against defendants seeking prayer to the following effect: “It is therefore humbly prayed that decree of prohibitory, permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or raising any structure on the suit land comprising Khata No. 37, Khatauni No. 38, Khasra No. 891, measuring 0-00-69 hectares, situated in Mohaal and Mauza Bara, Teh. Dehra, Distt. Kangra, as prayed in heading of the plaint may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants at their cost.” 4. Plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that he was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-00-69 hectares comprised in Khasra No. 891 in Mohal and Mauza Bara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) and he apprehended interference and encroachment on suit land as on 11.02.2004 the defendants allegedly had stacked building material on the suit land and had threatened to forcibly occupied the same. 5. In defence, the defendants raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, cause of action, estoppel and valuation etc. On merits, the ownership of plaintiff qua the suit land was not denied. The portion on which defendant No. 1 claimed his possession was stated to be comprised in Khasra No. 884. It was further submitted that the old house of defendant No. 1 was demolished and new house was being constructed on the same area. The allegations of plaintiff that the defendant intended to raise construction on the suit land were specifically denied. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of prohibitory and permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. The allegations of plaintiff that the defendant intended to raise construction on the suit land were specifically denied. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of prohibitory and permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence form filling the suit? OPD 5. Relief. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in negative, issue No. 3 was decided in affirmative, whereas issue No. 4 was decided as not pressed. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed. In first appeal plaintiff succeeded partly. Learned lower appellate court passed a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of plaintiff. As regards prayer for mandatory injunction, the same was denied. Hence, this appeal. 7. Instant appeal was admitted on 21.12.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Court below has erred in replying upon report of the Local Commissioner Ext. OW-1/A when the same does not fall within the parameters of the instructions of the Financial Commissioner. 2. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in not granting mandatory injunction regarding suit property in favour of the appellant? 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The specific relief claimed by the plaintiff was in respect of Khasra No. 891 measuring 0-00-69 hectares. The suit was preferred on apprehension that the defendants might violate the boundaries of Khasra No. 891 and might raise construction thereon. It was also averred that in case the defendants succeeded in raising construction on suit land, the same be ordered to be demolished by way of mandatory injunction. The allegations to such effect were specifically denied by the defendants. Their specific case was that the construction was being raised on Khasra No. 884 on the same location where old house of defendant No. 1 existed. 10. Learned trial Court held that plaintiff had failed to prove interference in the suit land as also encroachment thereon by the defendants. Reliance was placed on the demarcation report Ext. OW-1/A submitted by the Local Commissioner. 10. Learned trial Court held that plaintiff had failed to prove interference in the suit land as also encroachment thereon by the defendants. Reliance was placed on the demarcation report Ext. OW-1/A submitted by the Local Commissioner. During the demarcation OW-1 (Local Commissioner) had not found any encroachment on the suit land. The plaintiff raised objection to the report of Local Commissioner on the ground that the demarcation was not carried on the basis of old record. Learned trial Court had dismissed the objection of plaintiff vide detailed order dated 12.09.2008. It was held that the Local Commissioner had conducted the demarcation in accordance with laid procedure. The objection of plaintiff regarding omission to conduct demarcation on the basis of old record was rejected on the ground that as per rules the demarcation was to be conducted on the basis of latest revenue record and otherwise also plaintiff had not specifically challenged the authenticity of new records. The order passed by learned trial Court on the objection of plaintiff was not challenged. 11. The learned lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of learned trial Court on re-appreciation of evidence. Again, reliance was placed on demarcation report Ext. OW-1/A. However, learned lower Appellate Court modified the decree passed by learned trial Court only to the extent that decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff had strong apprehension of interference into suit land by the defendants and such apprehension was sufficient to grant him decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. Defendants have not assailed the decree passed by learned lower appellate court, therefore, the same had attained finality as against defendants. 12. After going through the records, the findings of facts recorded by learned Courts below have been found to be in consonance therewith. The findings so recorded are borne from the records and cannot be said to be perverse. 13. The plaintiff, of his own, had made no effort to prove the extent of boundaries of the suit land. It was only by way of the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner that the boundaries of the suit land were ascertained. As per the report Ext. OW-1/A of Local Commissioner, no encroachment was found in the suit land by the defendants. The plaintiff objected to the report Ext. It was only by way of the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner that the boundaries of the suit land were ascertained. As per the report Ext. OW-1/A of Local Commissioner, no encroachment was found in the suit land by the defendants. The plaintiff objected to the report Ext. OW-1/A only on the ground that the demarcation was not carried out on the basis of old record. Learned trial Court after consideration of objections dismissed the same on the ground that in absence of challenge to the new revenue record, the plaintiff had no right to claim the conduct of demarcation on old records. 14. The Local Commissioner was also examined in the Court as OW-1. Plaintiff though cross-examined the Local Commissioner, but could not assail the demarcation report on legally tenable grounds. Since the demarcation was carried out by the competent Revenue Officer and there being nothing on record to prove his report to be not in accordance with law, the reliance placed on such report by both the learned Courts below cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal are decided in negative. 15. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judgment and decree dated 25.07.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 130-G/XIII-2008 is affirmed. 16. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications if any.