TULSIRAM Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is first argued that the sale-deed, Ex. P. 1, is not properly interpreted by the lower appellate Court as regards the description of the length. There is no misinterpretation. The Court has understood it in the very sense that the learned pleader for the appellant has attached to it in argument, viz., that 25 cubits represent the length of the structure only and not also of the open site. The other recitals in the deed show that some open site to the east was included in the sale. Exhibit P 4 further supports the plaintiff's claim. The wall referred to therein is clearly the wall XY or AD and not the wall BC.

(2.) THE finding that the site ABCD belongs to the plaintiff is not open to interference in second appeal, and that finding stands. The projection of the eaves is admittedly a trespass. The projection has apparently been deliberate and no reason can be seen why the trespass should he allowed to continue on condition of the defendant paying compensation to the plaintiff. No plea to this effect was made in the lower Courts.

(3.) AS regards the order directing the door in the wall XY be removed, the decree of the first Court, which has been confirmed in appeal, cannot be supported. The wall and its site are the property of the defendant and he is at liberty to deal with the wall as he likes. The plaintiff cannot claim that he should not open a door in it. The decree will be amended by the omission of the words " and the door " occurring between the words remove the eaves " and the words " in dispute immediately."