(1.) The appellant, as defendant, lost in both the Courts below. The dispute between the parties is about a wall, which touches the constructed portion of the plaintiff and is separated by a lane with the construction of the defendant. The defendant by raising construction on his upper floor has covered a portion of the lane and has raised it on the disputed wall.
(2.) The learned Judge of the first appellate Court himself had made spot inspection and had prepared a note dated 15.7.1972, which is on record in the file of the first appellate Court. The learned Judge also annexed with his report the sketch map prepared by him. Having gone through the report and the sketch map, I find that a decision has correctly been reached that the disputed wall forms part of the construction of the plaintiff and the title vests in her. The defendant has been injuncted, in any manner, from interfering with the ownership of the wall by putting glass pieces on it.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the proceedings under section 145 Crimial P.C. terminated in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff did not bring a suit within one year from the date of the order, which is barred under section 145(6) Crimial P.C. The second submission on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that the documents of title to the house filed by the parties were totally overlooked that the masonary work existing on the spot showed construction of two walls at the disputed place of which one belongs to the defendant.