V. Jagannathan, J.

This second appeal gives rise to an occasion to interpret Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’ for short). The defendant before the trial Court is the appellant herein and he is aggrieved by the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court inasmuch as though the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and consequential injunction, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and hence this second appeal by the defendant.

2. The facts which fall within a very narrow compass are to the effect that the plaintiff, being the owner of plot No.11 of R.S.No.224 of Bagalakote, flied the suit in question by contending that the appellant herein, who was the defendant and being the owner of the adjacent plot No. 12, had encroached upon the plaintiff’s property and the portion encroached is described as GBC in the sketch annexed to the plaint and, therefore, the relief was sought for declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the GBC portion and for consequential order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said GBC