RSA No. 556 of 2010. 20.05.2011. Present: Mr. J.R.Poswal,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. K.D.Sood,Advocate, for the respondent. This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 01.09.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2009 affirming judgment, decree dated 03.03.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 109/1 of 2004. 2. The respondent had filed a suit for possession of land comprised in Kh. No. 22 , measuring 29.93 Square Metres, situate in Up-Mohal Kherian, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur by way of demolition of structure existing over the suit land. 3. The appellants contested the suit by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, valuation, limitation and jurisdiction, resjudicata. On merits, the appellants took the plea that respondent is not in possession of the shop as well as the suit land and, therefore, she is not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. 4. It has come on record that the predecessor of appellants in the earlier round of litigation had claimed ownership of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession, but that plea was rejected vide judgment dated 05.10.1996 Ex. PW1/E by learned Sub Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 08.12.2003 Ex. PW1/B upheld the judgment Ex. PW1/E. The matter was taken to High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.08.2004 Ex. PW1/H. The alleged title of the appellants by way of adverse possession was not accepted by any Court in the earlier round of litigation. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no tatima has been annexed with the plaint and decree cannot be passed in absence of tatima. The perusal of the operative part of the judgment of Trial Court would show that decree has been passed with respect to complete Kh. No. 22 and in such a situation the tatima was not required. The other objection of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the decree of possession has been passed by way of demolition even though there was no prayer for mandatory injunction in the suit. The suit is for possession and while granting the relief, the Court in its wisdom passed the decree for possession by demolition of structure found on Kh. No. 22 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and affirmed by learned District Judge. In second appeal reappreciation of evidence is not permissible. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. May 20, 2011. (krt)