JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. 1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 21/2024 affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.14.2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit Reg No. 348/2014. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any interference in the suit land, including parking vehicles or altering its nature, along with a consequential mandatory injunction. The suit land, comprising Khewat No. 72, Khatauni No. 84, Khasra No. 477/447, measuring 02-15-06 bighas, situated in Mohal Soyra, Hadbast No. 185, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., was claimed to be exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The defendants, being strangers to the suit land, were alleged to have unlawfully interfered with the plaintiff's cultivation on the land. Specifically, on 29.10.2014, the defendants trespassed with a tractor and J.C.B., forcibly ploughed the plaintiff's land, and uprooted trees. Despite a complaint to the local police, no action was taken. Defendant No. 2, in connivance with Defendant No. 1, allegedly began parking vehicles on part of the suit land, prompting the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, improper valuation of court fee and jurisdiction, lack of locus standi and cause of action, and estoppel due to the plaintiff's conduct. They asserted that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon their land and had already encroached on government land. On merits, they denied any interest in the suit land, stating that Defendant No. 1 was the owner in possession of land comprised in Khata No. 24, Khatauni No. 26, Khasra No. 445, measuring 03-06-07 bighas, in the same Mohal. They alleged that the plaintiff was interfering with their peaceful possession and that Defendant No. 1 had sought demarcation, which, conducted on 29.10.2014, revealed the plaintiff's encroachment. Post-demarcation, Defendant No. 1 placed boundary marks and took possession of his land. The defendants denied trespassing or parking vehicles on the plaintiff's land and prayed for the suit's dismissal. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating the plaint's contents and denying the written statement. 4. Post-demarcation, Defendant No. 1 placed boundary marks and took possession of his land. The defendants denied trespassing or parking vehicles on the plaintiff's land and prayed for the suit's dismissal. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating the plaint's contents and denying the written statement. 4. After pleadings were completed, the court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? ...OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the in alternative relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? ...OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? ...OPD 4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, as alleged? ...OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit, as alleged? ...OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, as alleged? ...OPD 7. Relief. 5. Both parties led evidence, with the plaintiff examining two witnesses and the defendants examining three. After hearing arguments, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a first appeal, contending that the judgment was contrary to law and facts, that the trial court had not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing, and that the demarcation obtained by the plaintiff had attained finality as it was unchallenged. 6. The plaintiff argued that the defendants repeatedly sought fresh demarcations to encroach upon his land, which the trial court failed to appreciate. It was further contended that the trial court erroneously held that the plaintiff had not established his cause of action, ignoring the presence of government land separating the parties' plots and the defendants' encroachment after crossing said land. The plaintiff prayed for the appeal's allowance, setting aside the trial court's judgment, and decreeing the suit. However, the first appeal was also dismissed, leading to the present second appeal. 7. Perused the impugned judgement and heard counsel for the Appellant. 8. In the case at hand, the plaintiff relied on his own testimony as PW1 and a demarcation report Ext.PW1/D to allege interference by the defendants in the suit land. However, the demarcation report and expert witnesses who conducted it, confirmed that both parties were in possession of their respective Khasra numbers, disproving the plaintiff's claim of encroachment. 8. In the case at hand, the plaintiff relied on his own testimony as PW1 and a demarcation report Ext.PW1/D to allege interference by the defendants in the suit land. However, the demarcation report and expert witnesses who conducted it, confirmed that both parties were in possession of their respective Khasra numbers, disproving the plaintiff's claim of encroachment. The plaintiff failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his allegation that the defendants trespassed on 29.10.2014, uprooted trees, or forcibly ploughed the land. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, established through repeated demarcations that their land was distinct from the plaintiff’s, with government land separating the two. The plaintiff’s admission regarding pending unauthorized occupation proceedings further weakens his case. His sole reliance on a police complaint, without corroborative evidence, renders his allegations unsubstantiated. 10. Both the courts below have correctly and concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove encroachment or interference by the defendants and I find no infirmity with the same. 11. Therefore, in the present facts and attending circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal, is dismissed, as being abated. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.