Mandatory demarcation procedure in boundary disputes: approximate revenue report and derivative evidence cannot prove khasra-based possession claims.

In a boundary dispute over competing khasra numbers, the Court treated the prescribed revenue demarcation procedure as mandatory and held that a report based only on approximate measurements, without reliable permanent reference points, could not determine title or possession. The local commissioner's report was therefore rightly disregarded, and testimony derived from that discarded report could not independently prove the claim. The party seeking injunction also failed to establish that the entire suit property, including the vacant portion, fell within the asserted non-acquired khasra. The concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed in second appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the courts below were justified in disregarding the demarcation report and the evidence based on it in deciding whether the suit land fell in Khasra No. 48/7 or Khasra No. 48/5.

Analysis: The dispute turned on a boundary demarcation. The report prepared by the local commissioner was not based on the prescribed revenue procedure for such disputes, as no reliable permanent points could be identified and the measurements were only approximate. In a boundary controversy, the applicable instructions under the revenue law required identification from permanent points, and the Court found that those instructions were mandatory. Since the report did not satisfactorily determine the disputed khasra and remained uncertain, the courts below were correct in declining to rely on it. The appellants also failed to independently prove that the entire suit property, including the vacant portion, fell in the non-acquired khasra. The testimony of DW-1, being derived from the same discarded report, could not by itself establish the claim.

Conclusion: The demarcation report and the derivative testimony were rightly ignored, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement to injunction.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed because the concurrent factual findings suffered from no legal infirmity warranting interference under second appellate jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a boundary dispute, a demarcation report that does not comply with the mandatory prescribed procedure and rests only on approximations cannot be relied upon to determine title or possession, and a party seeking injunction must independently prove the suit property falls within the claimed khasra.

---