8 It can be gathered from the pleadings, evidence and the contents of both the impugned Judgments that the dispute is mainly in respect of Eastern side boundary of the suit land. In the pleadings the plaintiff has given the boundary towards East as “Government canal and then after the land of defendant which has been acquired by Government”. However, if we see his sale deed, it is stated as - “iwosZl elyxk dWukWy o ns.kkj dza-2 ph f”kYyd tehu”. Thus, the inconsistency has been brought on record. We will have to go by the documents and not by pleadings. Both the Courts have held that it appears from the record that twice the land belonging to respondent No.1 was acquired but who is actually in possession is not concerned to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown, as to where the remaining 01 R land of the defendant is situated. No authentic map of the site was produced before the Trial Court. Plaintiff has not examined his one of the predecessors i.e. Omkar Pol. If we go by the boundary shown in the plaint, then, immediately towards the East of the suit property there would be Government canal and in that case how and in what manner the defendants would try to dispossess him, taking disadvantage of the revenue record, is not understandable. The story put forward by the plaintiff is unacceptable on the preponderance of probabilities and, therefore, the discretion has been rightly used by both the Courts in rejecting the relief. No substantial questions of law, as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are arising in
