TABHI NAHAKANI Vs. BANCHHA GOUDA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for recovery of possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that she and the defendants are neighbours. Defendant no.1 is her immediate neighbour on the western side and defendant no.2 is the next immediate neighbour. Her ancestral house stands over the land measuring 9 cubits in breadth on its front side, 10 cubits on its back side and 100 cubits in length. There is a lane of 100 cubits in length and one cubit in breadth between the house of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, which is the suit property. The defendants trespassed on the lane in 1983. The house originally consisted of three rooms measuring 15 cubits. The father of defendant no.1 had purchased one house measuring 5 cubits, but he is in possession over 6 cubits. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of defendant no.1 is that his father purchased a land measuring 5 cubits x 100 cubits with a house standing thereon from the husband of the plaintiff in the year 1930. He is in possession of the house. He has not encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. He denied existence of the lane between his house and the house of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 was set ex parte.